" he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth. "
That Britain grabs anyone for any reason is not proof in support of your claim. The man in question was born during the transition period, so his birth was governed by the laws in effect THEN, not those placed into affect after 1789 with the Adoption of the New American Constitution. I do not understand why you bother citing this case. Here is a better one.
THE VENUS, 12 U. S. 253 (1814)
Chief Justice John Marshall: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
The Constitution only mentions two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized. There is no third category.
It mentions "natural born citizen" and those who are not. The term "citizen" can be broken into several categories.
1. Born abroad of American Parents. (plural)
2. Born abroad of an American parent (singular)
3. Native born of Foreign parents. (14th amendment citizenship only, and THAT wrongly applied.)
4. Native born of a Foreign parent and an American. (Born with one foreign allegiance.)
5. Native born to American parents (Natural born citizen.)
6. Born abroad of Foreign parents and naturalized.
Of the above, only one can claim no foreign allegiances whatsoever, and that is the standard defined by Vattel and cited many times by name and/or by definition subsequently throughout our history.
Many sources use "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably.
There was a time when they meant virtually the same thing, but the Cable act and the Women's citizenship act changed that. (Native born dual citizens)
This is why your argument is so stupid. Ponder that for a bit.
Once again, Marshall quotes a large chunk of Vattel, not just the snippet you posted, and it is obvious in context that the portion after your quote is what he is after as it applies to the case. The part you quote does not apply to the case.
I’ll have to answer the rest later - no time now.
Perhaps you missed that Justice Story was talking about American citizenship?
There was a time when they meant virtually the same thing, [native born and natural born - ed] but the Cable act and the Women's citizenship act changed that. (Native born dual citizens)
The Cable act nowhere says that it makes a distinction between native born and natural born. As for "Women's Citizenship Act" that comes up as a synonym for the Cable Act, or possibly applies to a 1907 or a 1933 or a 2001 statute - which did you mean?
Of the above, only one can claim no foreign allegiances whatsoever, and that is the standard defined by Vattel and cited many times by name and/or by definition subsequently throughout our history.
It's a very pretty list, but the distinctions you make are not in the Constitution, and in the 14th amendment debate the words "native born" and "natural born" are used interchangeably. Further, Common Law is cited by name or definition frequently through our history and law. I will again bring up Rogers vs. Bellei, supreme court case which said
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.