You don't understand. Gray wasn't using this citation to declare anyone to be a natural-born citizen. He was only using it to give teeth to the 14th amendment. For you to quote it and think it has broader application to the definition of natural-born citizen is wrong, which is why I gave the context of the quote. Obviously Gray knew that context because he avoided declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen.
The quote above was in Section III of the Wong Kim Ark case, which started out explaining how American law so far had followed the English common law.
It doesn't matter. Gray says NBC is outside the Constitution and the definition he finally settles on is from the Minor decision. He doesn't dispute it and he acknowledges that Virginia Minor's citizenship was based in part on having citizen parents. English common law won't change that, but Gray felt he could still use it to bolster the 14th amendment. To do so, he resorted to different terminology: "citizenship by birth."
If section III was sufficient, there would have been no section IV or V in the decision. Surely, even YOU are smart enough to understand that and honest enough to admit it.
You said: “English common law won’t change that, but Gray felt he could still use it to bolster the 14th amendment. To do so, he resorted to different terminology: “citizenship by birth.”
NO!!! Look at what you base your theory on: “he resorted to different terminology” That is where you keep screwing up because that is just your CONCLUSION, and the case itself does not say that. Some of the terms were used interchangeably, and you are reading this stuff like some sort of obsessed religious person who makes up their own religion by mangling the Bible.
Section IV dealt with the other losing side’s arguments.
Section V dealt with saying how the 14th Amendment, what it said and concluded with: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens. . .
Section VI dealt with how all this worked with Chinese people.
Sooo, no. Once again you are just making up conclusions about the case. Why don’t you just try reading it in the daylight, without all the preconceived nonsense??? It really isn’t all that hard.
I have a idea. Why don’t you try debating the case one day with this rule: You don’t get to bring anything to the case that isn’t in it. No Vattel. No language from another case that isn’t already in the case. No pre-conceived conclusions. Just what the case says.