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.
These were common synomyms, "natural born," "native born" and Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862 used "home born" as a synonym for "natural born." For instance, during the debate on the 14th amendment, Senator Williams:
The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native born citizen of the United States with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States... [find it here by going to page 573, no way to directly link]
Second, the "native-born" citizens ONLY applies to White Persons. The terms are obviously NOT used interchangeably
This is really concrete thinking. The quote spoke of White Persons, not because that was the law at the time of WKA or that Justice Gray thought the concept only applies to Whites, but showing that whether born of citizens or of foreigners, those born on the soil are native born. This follows his statement
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;English common law: born on the soil = natural born. But you've ignored other portions of WKA, such as
United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:and"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says: "Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors,and
"And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives,So here we have Gray quoting several sources that say the US follows the same rules for "natural born citizen" as England does for "natural born subject."
... in certain Constitutional circumstances. Rogers v. Bellei also notes "citizenship at birth" for persons born abroad. This is NOT jus soli citizenship.
No kidding. Strawman, since I never said it was.
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.
Concrete thinking again, and a strawman to boot. Since I never said that jus soli was the only way to obtain citizenship, (see the Naturalization act of 1790) you have set up a strawman. The court clearly said
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.