Although I've pointed out this dishonesty to Uncle Chip before, let me point it out for any casual readers who think UC has any interest in the truth:
"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, 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 [p168] 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."
There are honorable birthers, and there are liars who quote small sections in an attempt to deceive others. "Uncle Chip" has had the full quote pointed out to him before, so I must conclude that UC is in category 2.
Please also note that Minor recognized two classes: [natives, or natural-born citizens] or [aliens or foreigners]. By birth, they assume you are one or the other.
But if you want to know how the Supreme Court ruled when confronted with a case requiring them to decide, read WKA as I have posted earlier. The FULL quote, not just the sentence fragments that birthers like.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts,
Did you even notice the bold part? Apparently not.
The entire quote doesn’t change the definition they used. The chose only one definition to use because the other had doubts that required justification. They never said they were able to solve the doubts, but that they didn’t need to because there was a definition that had no doubts.
Because I knew you would and in the process drop your IQ even further on this forum.
Although I've pointed out this dishonesty to Uncle Chip before, let me point it out for any casual readers who think UC has any interest in the truth:
Please do. Can I lend you a crayon for your mindless dissertation????
"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, 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 [p168] 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."
Do you see the word "natural born citizen in anything that you underlined or boldfaced??? I didn't think so.
As to the class of "children born within the the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", there are doubts that they are "citizens" -- get it -- there are doubts that they are "citizens" -- and if there are doubts as to their citizenship, then they still "aliens and foreigners". Get it. If they are doubted to be even "citizens", then there is no doubt that they are not even close to being "natural born citizens".
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
And who exactly is the "first class here? It's this class: the "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...".
as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
By law, anyone undergoing naturalization was considered an "alien and foreigner", and by that same law, children born in this country of naturalizing parents were considered also of the same status: "aliens and foreigners" -- until their father [parents] completed their naturalization. Some authorities wanted to jump the gun and assume that their parents would become citizens -- some but not many and not most -- just some.
Either way, Waite's definition of "natural born citizen", as certified by Gray and Wong Kim Ark, stands without any doubts at all:
"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 ...".
If you can't understand it, then show it to your horses and have them explain it to you. They have more sense.