I would assume this is the reason for the use of the non-constitutional term citizenship by birth. Again the decision leaves unstated whether or not all citizens by birth are also NBCs. Had the Court addressed this point, it would have been obiter dicta, so they just ignored it.
The ruling of the Court allows a belief either that NBCs are a subset of citizens by birth, or that all citizens by birth are by definition NBCs.
IMO the second conclusion seems more congruent with the general tenor of the decision.
YMMV
He gave a definition for NBC that excludes Ark: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. The facts as agreed by BOTH parties is that Ark was not born to citizen parents. Gray explained that NBCs were excluded from the operation of birth clause of the 14th amendment (in respect to the Minor decision). How much more clearly does it have to be stated??
The ruling of the Court allows a belief either that NBCs are a subset of citizens by birth, or that all citizens by birth are by definition NBCs.
No court ruling can control irrational beliefs. This one, however, clearly stated that NBCs are those born in the country to citizen parents. For those born to NONcitizen parents, the parents had to have permanent domicil and residence, which excludes Obama from being a 14th amendment citizen. At best, he is a citizen by statute, but only if he can legally prove the facts of his birth.
Wanted to revisit your comment about subsets of citizenship. You said, “The ruling of the Court allows a belief either that NBCs are a subset of citizens by birth, or that all citizens by birth are by definition NBCs.”
The latter part of your statement can be disproven. NBCs are a subset of Citizens of the United States. At the time, this country was established, the citizens were those who declared themselves to be citizens of the country and renounced any and all allegiance to Great Britain or their other parent countries. So in this sense, there were no citizens at birth except those who occurred under NATURAL circumstances, those persons who were born to the original self-declared citizens of the United States. If there is a “set of citizens at birth grew,” then it grew by addition not by incorporation or by broadening the NBC.
The first by naturalization law, the act of 1790, declared, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:” While these children might be considered as NBCs, they are technically naturalized at birth because Congress only has the power to naturalize. They are NOT literally NBCs.
Evidently Congress realized this was problematic, so the NBC verbiage was dropped in 1795: “and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” These are citizens by birth, but they are still not natural born citizens.
The 14th amendment ADDS to this growing set of citizens at birth (part natural and part statutory), but it does not expand nor change the definition of natural born citizen. Again, Gray said NBC were excluded from the birth clause. The point is that NBCs were the original citizens at birth, so they were only a subset of a larger set that was added on and did not overlap in meaning. Justice Waite in the Minor decision also recognized that the 14th amendment created citizens at birth, but he specifically said that NBCs did not need that amendment. In his definition NBCs are one class of citizens by birth and those who are born to noncitizens are a second class of citizenship, for which doubt exists about their citizenship. There is no doubt about NBCs.