Replies

Because that was her situation. The same way WKA mentioned that WKA's parents were subjects of China. The fact that it was China as opposed to Italy or Nigeria or Greenland doesn't change the case, but he states the facts.

You're getting there. Her situation contributed to her fitting the definition of a natural born citizen, while WKA's did not. You do understand that she presented an argument that she was a 14th amendment citizen, yet the court said the 14th amendment did NOT confer citizenship on her. Her citizenship was due to being born to citizen parents. Gray recognized this and had to include that in his summation.

The Supreme Court also seems to think that the US follow English common law for NBC. From WKA:

Your quote doesn't say that NBC must be follow common law, only that it must be interpreted "in light of" the common law, which means under consideration of. Regardless of an interpretation in the light of common law, the court must still follow legal precedent, which it does from Minor v. Happersett. But that aside, the part you quoted is followed immediately by a reference to the Minor v. Happersett decision.

Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

The common law that aided Waite in defining NBC was from Vattel's Law of Nations and not English common law. Compare the definitions of both.

Waite: ... all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens ... These were the natives, or natural-born citizens ...

Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Compare the underlined phrases which match in the two definitions.

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.

Well, duh. The same rule WAS in force because as mentioned in the Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor decision, you could be born in the U.S and still be a British subject based on the allegiance of the parents. This citation doesn't help your argument.

Funny, you left out the what followed, which is kind of important if he was really setting a requirement:

These sentences reinforce my point. The first class has no doubts BECAUSE they are natural born citizens. The second class has doubts about their citizenship because they are NOT born to citizen parents and DO NOT MEET the definition of natural born citizen. Are you intentionally shooting your own argument in the foot???

The common law that aided Waite in defining NBC was from Vattel's Law of Nations and not English common law.

Now that's really stretching far beyond sanity. Vattel is not "common law". I've given you several quotes from WKA, and could find many from other cases which cite English Common law. Can you find any calling Vattel "common law"?

He never said they do not meet the definition. Read it again - he said there were doubts, and those doubts would not be addressed in Minor v. Happersett. Doubt = "not sure" = no definitive definition. How many definitive judicial pronouncements are framed as "there are doubts and we're not going to resolve the issue in this case?"

Looking at this again, I fear you will never honestly read what is before you.

You removed the “neither – nor” from a quote, and continue to claim it did not change the meaning.
You ignore multiple references in WKA to English common law, and claim that Vattel is what they mean by “common law”
You ignore Justice Waite’s statement in Minor v Happersett that there are doubts about whether certain citizens classify as natural born, and that the court won’t address the issue. Instead, you claim the court did address the issue.
You claim there is no definition of jus soli = natural born, when there are several sources for the definition. "Born on the soil" is the same as natural born starting with the English Calvin’s case in 1608. Note that this case is cited by WKA, and has been cited in other Supreme Court cases.

I can't continue discussing this with someone who either can't understand what they are reading, or is so invested in the way they want it to be that they refuse to see it honestly.