That's simply not true. John Bingham, one of the authors of the 14th amendment, said, "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen ..." Notice, this admits that persons born in the United State of parents owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty are NOT natural born citizens. The 14th amendment therefore created citizenship at birth for these people that did not previously exist. It wasn't just slaves who benefited from the 14th amendment.
Please cite where they claim natural born citizenship didn't apply to WKA.
First in the definition of natural born citizen and second, by declaring that WKA's citizenship was established by the 14th amendment: "The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'" They're saying WKA is a citizen because as a Chinese person born in the country (there's an intersting oxymoron, by the way), acts of Congress can't trump the 14th amendment. Notice they're not saying WKA is a natural born citizen and in the summary of the decision, they repeat: "... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." If WKA was a natural born citizen, by definition, there's no need to cite the 14th amendment.
Off-the-cuff remarks made on the floor of Congress carry no legal weight.
Notice, this admits that persons born in the United State of parents owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty are NOT natural born citizens.The 14th amendment therefore created citizenship at birth for these people that did not previously exist.
That is simply not true. Free white persons born in the USA of foreign parents, but subject to US jurisdiction, ware ALWAYS citizens at birth, even before the 14th Amendment. From Justice Grey's opinion in Kim Wong Ark:
"That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583."
Edge: First in the definition of natural born citizen and second,
Nope. Nowhere in the entire decision does Gray define NBC so as to exclude US-born children of aliens under US jurisdiction. Strike one.
second, by declaring that WKA's citizenship was established by the 14th amendment: "
False dichotomy. Just becaue the 14th amendment establishes his citizenship does not mean that the common law argument doesn't do it as well. In point of fact, Gray makes abundnatly clear that BOTH arguments are valid. Strike two.
And now for strike three:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries...every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
"The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
And just in case you try to weasle out of that by claiming a natural born subject isn't the same thing as a natural born citizen, Justice Gray explicitly affirms that the North Carolina Supreme Court was correct when it said:
"Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; . . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government."