A case dealing with naturalized citizens, not natural-born. Natural-born citizenship is not defined anywhere in any of the majority opinions.
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens (that is one or the other, for those in Rio Linda), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Note the "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." So they didn't rule on what constituted natural-born citizenship. And since it was an election law case, that is not surprising.
Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Except that in the Elg case the nationality of the mother is never identified. The father was a naturalized citizen, the mother may not have been. And I'll point out that Elg is referred to as 'native-born' and 'natural born' at different times in the same decision. Are you saying the two are synonymous?
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment...
But, unfortunately, not Justice John Bingham writing for the majority. His opinion on what the Constitution means is no more binding than your's or mine.
Now you are just playing stupid to be stubborn and try to get a rise out posters ... Marshall cited Vattel’s defintion in Marshall’s ruling. I’m through with you tonight.
The only place in the Elg decision where natural born is cited is the following as mentioned from a lower court ruling which the SCOTUS neither affirmed nor used in their ruling:
[[ Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants
Page 307 U. S. 350
(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship. ]]
You can see that the SCOTUS was not declaring Elg to be a natural born citizen, even stating in the SCOTUS ruling that the lower court had made that ruling but the SCOTUS would rule only that she had not lost her American citizenship.
The Aetna Life v Howarth case was cited as the reasonable establishment of a controversy the SCOTUS should undertake to settle between the Secretary and Miss Elg.
The case is significant because it delved into the reality of native born and native born American citizen parents.
[[Perkins v Elg: In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case-that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States-the Court adverted to the 'inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship. …
And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United State …
Citing the in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, the issue of native son was raised … ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen’ … his Prussian born father who had naturalized, took him to Germany but if the boy at age 21 returned and reasserted his citizenship he would be eligible for election to president since he was once a native born son and both parents were American citizens at his birth …
Secretary Evarts gave a similar instruction in 1880 with respect to a native citizen of Danish parentage [the citizenship defined as native born not natural born with the foreign citizenship of parents cited] who having been taken abroad at an early age claimed American citizenship on attaining his majority, saying:4 'He lost no time when he attained the age of majority, in declaring that he claimed the United States as his country and that he considered himself a citizen. ]]
The arguments in Elg boiled down to ‘explicit Rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by an ambiguity’ … note rights of citizenship is not stated as natural born citizenship.
"... unfortunately, not Justice John Bingham writing for the majority. His opinion on what the Constitution means is no more binding than your's or mine." Um, I cited the words of Bingham because he is considered to be the most noted expert on naturalization and natural born citizenship having virtually written the 14th Amend. I would trust his comprehension of the phrase 'natural born citizen' more than yours or mine.
There are at least three ways American citizenship can be defined: by naturalization of legal statute; by being born on American soil (native born as with the Danish case cited in Elg); natural born, as a child born on MAerican soil having American citizen parents at birth. That is the real value of the Elg case, that it discussed three ways citizenship can be established.