What you said above makes no sense. But you probably realize that. Look at Rogers v. Bellei, that decision is clear that birth on the soil is sufficient.
You act as if your statement is enough to make it true. Where is your SCOTUS case confirming "NOT legally characterized as natural-born"?
I'll restate it for you from our previous discussions: Several courts have affirmed that much of the US Constitution and law follows English common law. SCOTUS has said specifically that the US follows this in jus soli citizenship. In English common law "born on the soil" equals "natural born" (usual diplomatic and military exceptions.)
Further for your fantasy that "14th amendment citizenship" is somehow different than "non 14th amendment citizenship, " see Rogers v Bellei, quoting Afroyim v Rusk:
And in Afroyim, both majority and dissenting Justices appear to have agreed on the basic proposition that the scope of the Citizenship Clause, whatever its effect, did reach all citizens. The opinion of the Court in Afroyim described the Citizenship Clause as "calculated completely to control the status of citizenship."Which meas that the 14th amendment controls and applies to all US citizens. The 14th amendment does not make separate categories of born citizens.
Sorry, but this is your typical lazy excuse to avoid admitting you've lost the argument ... again.
Look at Rogers v. Bellei, that decision is clear that birth on the soil is sufficient.
Not for natural-born citizenship. Try being intellectually honest. Here's what the court said:
Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:
Do you understand what this says??? It's saying there was NO formal definition of "native born" citizenship until the Civil Rights Act, but it doesn't affirm anything about "birth on the soil" being sufficient to obtain citizenship. Instead, this is conditional (which would preclude Obama):
"[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . ."Where is your SCOTUS case confirming "NOT legally characterized as natural-born"?
Minor v. Happersett. It describes two classes of birth citizens. ONLY ONE is characterized as natural-born. We've been over this. All you do is deny and/or bail out when you can't refute the facts.
Several courts have affirmed that much of the US Constitution and law follows English common law. SCOTUS has said specifically that the US follows this in jus soli citizenship.
... only through the 14th amendment and statutory law, BUT subject to other conditions and requirements. Natural-born citizenship is a combination of jus soli AND jus sanguinis without any other requirements. The court made this clear in three cases that I've already cited, plus in TWO more cases that you've cited.
In English common law "born on the soil" equals "natural born" (usual diplomatic and military exceptions.)
This is statutory naturalization when it concerns the children of foreigners and aliens. Such persons have to have actual obedience to the crown. There's nothing equivalent to this in the United States ... at least not UNTIL the 14th amendment, but that is NOT natural-born citizenship. The court said specifically that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. You can't get around this inconvenient fact, so you might as well admit you're wrong and save yourself further embarrassment.
Further for your fantasy that "14th amendment citizenship" is somehow different than "non 14th amendment citizenship, " see Rogers v Bellei, quoting Afroyim v Rusk:
It was explained quite specifically in Wong Kim Ark. NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution. The so-called fundamental rule of "citizenship by birth" was defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment. These are TWO different types or classes of citizenship. Also, you're relying on a quote from the dissent in Bellei about NATURALIZATION which was describing comments from Afroyim that were used only in conjunction with the PROTECTION of citizenship in relationship to naturalization. Here's the majority quote from Afroyim:
Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 387 U. S. 256-268.
(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 387 U. S. 257-261.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. Pp. 387 U. S. 262-268.
This doesn't say anything about the 14th amendment conferring citizenship on NBCs nor that it redefines citizenship for NBCs. Nothing here undermines nor changes the fact that the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed and upheld the Minor definition of NBC ... and affirmed that NBCs were excluded from the operation of the birth clause in the 14th amendment. That the rest of the amendment applies to NBCs is not disputed. It does not confer citizenship on NBCs.
Do you think Senator Howard and Representative Bingham were familiar with the term "natural born citizen?"