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.
This isn't a theory. Read the decision. Gray cites "natural-born citizen" only a few times, but does so limited to where it is in Art II, Sec I, and where it is defined in the Minor decision. In contrast, Gray cites "citizenship by birth" several times, but in direct relationship to the 14th amendment, common law, and to the defendant.
... all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America ...
But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States ...
The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution ....
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
These opinions go to show that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the executive branch of the Government, the one charged with the duty of protecting American citizens abroad against unjust treatment by other nations, has taken the same view of the act of Congress of 1855, declaring children born abroad of American citizens to be themselves citizens, which, as mentioned in a former part of this opinion, the British Foreign Office has taken of similar acts of Parliament -- holding that such statutes cannot, consistently with our own established rule of citizenship by birth in this country, operate extraterritorially so far as to relieve any person born and residing in a foreign country and subject to its government, from his allegiance to that country.
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 ...
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
Notice in the underlined parts how Gray keeps associating his term "citizenship by birth" directly WITH and defined BY the 14th amendment. Contrast this to how he describes natural born citizen.
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."
It's a NEGATIVE association. The Constitution (of which the 14th amendment is a part) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Now why on Earth would Gray not simply say "natural born citizen" for all his other references to the 14th amendment instead of "citizenship by birth"??? Because the definition he used was from Minor and it was DEPENDENT on citizen parents. Gray made a clear and separate distinction and was CONSISTENT with that distinction. NBC defined outside the constitution. CBB defined by the constitution. NBC dependent on citizen parents. CBB dependent on 14th amendment and permanent domicil.