“Then why did they waste so much space discussing children of citizens living abroad? That, obviously, had nothing at all to do with WKA.”
First, they examined the NBC clause in light of the common law meaning of NBS. Since a NBS included those born within the realm regardless of alien parents (unless ambassadors), and NBS = NBC, thus WKA was a NBC and thus a citizen per the Constitution and not subject to any treaties to the contrary with China.
They cited a previous court, saying, “There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Thus they used common law to interpret what the Framers meant - not because common law ruled America, but because common law provided the legal phrases used by the Framers.
Next, they looked at the claim of citizenship of children born abroad. Why? Because, as they note [and the IV marks a change in thought]:
“IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.”
To answer this objection, they wrote, as they changed from NBC to citizen born abroad:
“The later modifications of the rule in Europe rest upon the constitutions, laws or ordinances of the various countries, and have no important bearing upon the interpretation and effect o the Constitution of the United States. The English Naturalization Act of 33 Vict. (1870) c. 14, and the Commissioners’ Report of 1869, out of which it grew, both bear date since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; and, as observed by Mr. Dicey, that act has not affected the principle by which any person who, whatever the nationality of his parents, is born within the British dominions, acquires British nationality at birth and is a natural-born British subject. Dicey, Conflict of Laws 41...Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.”
Notice it has been by acts of Parliament or Congress that citizenship is given to children born abroad of citizen parents, not the Constitution. This is to counter the claim that China could call WKA a citizen and negate his birthplace. And while some countries did so, the claim of citizenship based on parentage doesn’t negate what the Constitution gives to those born within our borders. Thus China could not claim WKA as their citizen, and the US accept it by treaty, since it would be based on laws and treaties rather than the Constitution.
They are discussing those born abroad because it would affect WKA - as the child of Chinese citizens, does the claim of China overrule the citizenship by birth? And the Supreme Court answers no, because the Constitution NBC overrides acts of Parliament, Congress, treaties, Chinese law, etc - and it is only by those that WKA could be considered a Chinese citizen.
Further, they point out:
“Moreover, under those statutes, as is stated in the Report in 1869 of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Laws of Naturalization and Allegiance, no attempt has ever been made on the part of the British Government, (unless in Eastern countries where special jurisdiction is conceded by treaty) to enforce claims upon, or to assert rights in respect of, persons born abroad, as against the country of their birth whilst they were resident therein, and when by its law they were invested with its nationality.”
I.e., the claim of parentage is weaker than the claim of location. The UK can claim Obama if they wish, but he remains a NBC because of his birth here, and the Court pointed out the British have never tried to enforce their act against the will of the individual.
The Court concluded:
“Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. “
Also, this answers your objection about the 1790 naturalization act, which mimics the acts of Parliament in declaring the child of two citizens born abroad a NBC/S.
At some point, it helps to read their decision, paying attention to formatting - the latter helps one understand when they are changing from one concern to another. Look for the III, IV, V etc - they indicate a major change in argument.
I'm trying not to laugh too hard, but this is pure fiction. You're connecting dots they never connected and what you quoted fails to support this. I would agree WKA was determined to a citizen per the Constitution, but only by virtue of the 14th amendment. Nothing in that decision says WKA is a natural born citizen. And your ridiculous game of connecting mismatching dots doesn't create such a statement.