That if he was born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September 1776, he was born an American citizen; and that it makes no difference in this respect, whether or not parents had at the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of the state of New York, by manifesting an intention of becoming permanently members thereof,
On your next point you quote
If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.Read a little further and see why birth after September 15th makes him a British subject:
As early as 15 September, 1776, his parents joined the British troops in New York and remained under the protection of the British arms during the war.Note that birth after September 15 1776 would mean he was born on British occupied territory, under the protection of the British occupiers. So your statement Notice how the citizenship of the child is now DEPENDENT on the allegiance of the parents DESPITE birth on U.S. soil. Your own source isn't particularly consistent. Sorry. is an error – if he was born September 15th or later, he was not born “under the ligeance of” the United States, but rather of Britain.
It's a pretty poor argument to claim that jus soli = natural born when there's no definition that specifically says this There are many. here’s one, and and another and even plain old Webster’s dictionary. The English system is also explained in WKA
Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. [the preceding sentence makes it clear that “such aliens” were “aliens in amity,” meaning not invading enemies]there’s also NGUYEN v. INS where Justice Scalia questioned the appealing lawyer
- Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? .
- They did not want that. .
- They wanted natural born Americans. .
- [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token….
- Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it? .
and the other dicta shows that the status of the parents has always been part of the consideration for the citizenship status of the child ... even up to the 14th amendment, which WKA said included the criteria of permanent domicil and residence.
I may have missed it, but where does it say they must be permanently domiciled? From WKA
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United StatesBy the way, are you saying Marco Rubio’s parents weren’t domiciled in the US?
Nothing was overlooked except perhaps by you by ignoring the part BEFORE what you italicized about how it made no difference and was explained BECAUSE the parents had manifest an intention of becoming permanent members of the state. BTW, NY had very liberal citizenship laws and generally declared anyone born there to be a citizen, which is not necessarily true in other states. This is manifest from the Lynch v. Clarke decision.
Read a little further and see why birth after September 15th makes him a British subject:
Wrong. You don't have to read any further because the part that is quoted acknowledges that the citizenship was based on what the parents ELECTED to do and whether they ADHERED to their native allegiance. Your own "further" quote, says the parents JOINED the British troops. The child was NOT going to be a British subject simply on the basis of the territory being occupied but on the ELECTION of the parents to remain or regain British citizenship.
There are many. here’s one, and and another and even plain old Webster’s dictionary. The English system is also explained in WKA
My comment about the poor argument was in direct reference to the Rogers v. Bellei case that was cited. There's NOTHING in that decision that says jus soli = natural born. But it matters not, because your own links don't even say this. As for the English system, ponder this: If Justice Gray believed the English system prevailed, even prior to the 14th amendment, why did he make a point of saying citizenship in the Minor case was decided on BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria??
there’s also NGUYEN v. INS where Justice Scalia questioned the appealing lawyer
Yeah, Scalia is ASKING questions. He's not making any declarations of fact.
I may have missed it, but where does it say they must be permanently domiciled?
It's part of the opening question and the conclusion of the decision:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, 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.
Gray elaborates on residence and domicil elsewhere in the decision and how it connects to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Here are a couple of the pertinent quotes. There are others that say basically the same thing.
It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution ...
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.