By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen ...
We are not born "subjects" in the United States. The so-called common law is an acknolwedgment that someone can be born on U.S. soil as a subject of Britain. Second, some states, such as New York (where the Lynch v. Clarke case took place) had specific laws declaring citizens of the state regardless of the parents citizenship. The NBC definition in Minor is referring to U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship. NBC is universal because NOT all states declared just anyone born on their soil to be citizens.
Something that is missed too, is a quote from Lynch v. Clarke (which was notably avoided in Wong Kim Ark) where the judge muses that he thinks that anyone born on the soil, regardless of alien parents, would be eligible for president. His opinion was NOT shared by the Supreme Court, which I've shown several times.
You said:”Something that is missed too, is a quote from Lynch v. Clarke (which was notably avoided in Wong Kim Ark) where the judge muses that he thinks that anyone born on the soil, regardless of alien parents, would be eligible for president. His opinion was NOT shared by the Supreme Court, which I’ve shown several times.”
My Bff Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer,told me that courts quote other cases for the stuff that applies to the case they are doing. She said they don’t just quote ALL of the other case because most cases have lots of different issues.
Sooo, while you are trying to read Wong Kim Ark for what is NOT said, you should be reading it for what IS said:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
WOW, that is sure hard to understand. NOT!!! And they also define BORN IN THE ALLEGIANCE and it is NOT what Vattel says, or anything about two citizen parents. OH NO!!! It is simply:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.
III. 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.13
What is all of that, like just THREE SHORT PARAGRAPHS, and you say that I am stupid and dumb??? OH, you should be looking in the mirror if you can’t even get three short paragraphs right.
So There!!!