No. This is only you making a lazy and inaccurate characterization. I diagrammed the sentence piece by piece and proved your own analogy was flawed.
Read it again. He used the consul/foreign minister issue as an example showing that care had not been used ("apparent from") and went on to adress the "subject to the jurisdiction" issue:
Are you really this stupid?? What you cited supports MY point. I said Gray took exception that consuls were not the same as foreign ministers. That's what the quote says: Read it.
... is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together
Do you understand?? Gray is taking exception ONLY to this as it pertains to being an exception to the subject clause.
... consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers ...
Consuls, Gray says, are not considered entitled to privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers. Of course, this is kind of a stupid thing to say, because when he talks about P&I, it's not in a Constitutional sense, but as from the "Law of Nations" (note how Gray is citing the same source as was used to define NBC). We'll continue.
... are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
So Gray concludes that consuls should not be excluded from the subject clause of the 14th amendment, but that foreign ministers (which Miller excluded) should be. As I said, this is the ONLY thing Gray took exception to, and then, in the NEITHER/NOR paragraph he added the exclusions of NBCs via Minor and subjects of foreign States via Elk. IOW, lurker, you just proved my point for me. Thank you.
But they specifically mention English common law don't they?
It doesn't matter. They aren't referring to NBCs. Don't you get it. You've failed to prove that NBC follows English common law. Do you understand why??? Because NBC does NOT follow English common law. The definition Gray used from Minor follows the Law of Nations.
Oh? Where did he affirm that he saw this as the definition of NBC? Or do you think just by quoting it (as he did the Napoleonic codes) that meant he agreed with everything he quoted?
In the part that said NBC are "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizesns" followed IMMEDIATELY by a paragraph saying the V. Minor's citizenship was due to being born in the country to citizen parents. From this point forward in the decision, Gray does NOT use the term "natural-born citizen" again.
And that's probably the nuttiest thing you've said so far
It's not my words. It is what Gray said specifically. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
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.
He's directly equating CBB with English common law and that it was the object of the 14th amendment to affirm this rule. Next he cites a quote that says the same thing:
In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said:The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage.
The 14th amendment affirms common law SO FAR as it assert the status to be fixed by place. NBC, defined OUTSIDE of the Constution is NOT irrespective of parentage. And technically, neither is the 14th amendment because of the subject clause. And one more time: 14th amendment affirms CBB, which Gray had already said was defined by English common law:
....the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory ....
Clearly 14th amendment citizenship is NOT the same as NBC. As Judge Waite said, NBCs do NOT need the 14th amendment to confer their citizenship. Gray must have agreed because he never equates 14th amendment citizenship with NBC. Never.
Gray mentioned Miller's shortcoming because Miller stated consuls (and other foreign subjects) were "outside the jurisdiction" - a favorite of the Birth Brigade. Gray rebukes him and goes on to show the law does not hold foreigners "outside the jurisdiction of" unless they are ambassadors or ministers. Please read it again
unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
when he talks about P&I, it's not in a Constitutional sense, but as from the "Law of Nations"
If he really was quoting Vattel, why did he not capitalize the title of the book? Hint: not every reference to the law of nations is a reference to a specific book, just as not every reference to "chemistry" is a reference to the high school textbook we used with that title.
In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage.
Look at that quote again, and the several others I posted previously - citizenship is fixed by place, irrespective of parentage. Natural born in common law is conferred by birth in country, having nothing to do with parentage. The US follows the English common law in this, born on the soil = natural born. As you say, "read it, understand it, learn from it."
In any case, Rogers v. Bellei quoted WKA, and specified
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.To remind you again: jus soli = born on the soil = natural born.