These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.. Then look at WKA
it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:Minor v. Happersett was about whether the 14th amendment meant women could vote. It was not about who was a citizen by birth. Justice Gray, after citing numerous cases,(many of which speak of birth within the country to alien parents as "natural born") comes to his point:"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.
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, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers...later in the case he says
The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.Got that? The Fourtheenth Amendment conferred no authority to restrict the effect of birth, or change the Constitutional mention of two categories: born and naturalized. The amendment "affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory" - jus soli.
Gray quoted Justice Marshall in this instance to explain why the exceptions in the Slaughterhouse Cases were not to be presumed to be the ONLY exceptions to the 14th amendment.
Minor v. Happersett was about whether the 14th amendment meant women could vote.
You say you can read, so why do you ignore that Waite specifically says:
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
Waite framed the argument very specifically as hinging on a 14th amendment citizenship claim. Waite accepted this as a significant part of the argument and accordingly dealt with why Minor was not a citizen via the 14th amendment. Why do you think he would talk about this at all if it was not partially about her citizenship??
It was not about who was a citizen by birth. Justice Gray, after citing numerous cases,(many of which speak of birth within the country to alien parents as "natural born") comes to his point: 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, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers...
You're making my point for me. Gray is talking specifically about the fourteenth amendment — the same amendment that he said EXCLUDED the children of citizens and the same amendment he noted does not say who natural-born citizens are. When he gave a full quote from the Minor decision, it was for the definition of natural-born citizenship. Do you disagree that he did this???
Got that? The Fourtheenth Amendment conferred no authority to restrict the effect of birth, or change the Constitutional mention of two categories: born and naturalized.
It doesn't say anything about changing the Constitutional mention of two categories. You've made that up. All it says ia that the 14th amendment still reserves naturalization authority for Congress and that Congress can't restrict the effect of birth via the 14th amendment. Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. The court already said NBC is defined outside the law. IOW, by this declaration, the court says Congress can't change that. This court said that the 14th amendment affirmed a second type of birth citizenship. So accordingly, Congress can't change that. No one is asking them to. This still respects the distinctions Gray made. NBC = defined outside the Constitution ... not by Congress. CBB = defined BY the Constitution via the 14th amendment ... not by Congress.