Well thanks, Captain Obvious. You have to be a citizen to be NBC. There are two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized. That's it.
Except there is NO passage in WKA that says this.
On the contrary, there are several passages that say the US follows the English common law precept.
The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words "citizens of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that 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;" and "that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States."Note "natural born" and "native born" used interchangeably.
Also note the judgment "affirmed" afterward.
natural-born citizen is EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment ... is not defined by the Constitutution and is NOT defined by law.
Excluded because you say so, or because you butcher quotes to seem to say that? And what do you think defines NBC in America? Your imagination? It is defined, by common law. Multiple cases and authorities acknowledge that the US follows English common law in this.
SCOTUS said: NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Composition fallacy. Saying that one group is a member of a category does not say that other groups are excluded. To remind you again, Rogers v. Bellei was clear - America follows jus soli.
Well, actually that's not true. There are ways to be a "born citizen" without being "natural-born" such as through statutory means ... as in born abroad to citizen parents.
On the contrary, there are several passages that say the US follows the English common law precept.
Ummm, I apologize for spoiling your moment AGAIN, but what you've cited changes terminology from one part of the quote to the other: from "natural-born" to "native-born." Second, the "native-born" citizens ONLY applies to White Persons. The terms are obviously NOT used interchangeably. It's simply not borne out (pun intended) from your citation.
Excluded because you say so, or because you butcher quotes to seem to say that?
It says what it says and it is SUPPORTED by the Minor decision that REJECTED the 14th amendment for persons who were already natural-born citizens. Women, it said, did NOT need this amendment to give them the position of being citizens. Again, I refer you to post #259 where your "quote butcher" accusation is completely debunked.
Saying that one group is a member of a category does not say that other groups are excluded.
What part of "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners" do you NOT understand?? The definition of NBC as a whole was self-limiting.
To remind you again, Rogers v. Bellei was clear - America follows jus soli.
... in certain Constitutional circumstances. Rogers v. Bellei also notes "citizenship at birth" for persons born abroad. This is NOT jus soli citizenship. Rogers v. Bellei also notes a term it calls "14th amendment citizenship." The only mentions of natural-born citizenship in this case are the naturalization act of 1790 and from a "passing refernce" to Art II, Sec. I. The petitioner was NOT born in the U.S. but he was a citizen at birth according to the court, which destroys the "jus soli only" theory.