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.
No one argues that senators might be confused about the terminology. The dicussion isn't about what some senators might think or misundersand. We're talking about the SCOTUS specifically defined this term and separated it from other terms. They are NOT used by the court as synonyms ... except as Justice Waite defined both "natives" and "natural-born citizens" as being all persons born in the country to citizen parents.
This is really concrete thinking.
Nonsense. Resorting to pointless comments like this only exposes your inability to handle losing the argument.
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.
The quote isn't about the law a the time of WKA. Can you NOT read?? Gray CLEARLY says: "before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment" and the language in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (also not the law at the time of WKA) but as quoted clearly in Minor says: "Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person, ..."
English common law: born on the soil = natural born.
Sorry, but you're playing a very sloppy and dishonest game of connect the dots. He may have said this about natural-born subjects, but he did NOT say this about "natural-born citizens." This was ONLY defined as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
But you've ignored other portions of WKA, such as United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
Sorry, but this is an outright falsehood. I've addressed the U.S. v. Rhodes citation and/or the relevant argument in posts #295, #302, #305 and #348. The citation from U.S. v Rhodes is talking about ITS citation of Shanks v. Dupont, in which persons born on U.S. soil could be subjects of Great Britain. IOW, it affirms that English common law applied to make those born on U.S. soil natural-born SUBJECTS. In order to be U.S. citizens, those born on U.S. soil had to be in the allegiance to the U.S. by virtue of the parents ADHERING to the U.S.
Your chancellor Kent quotes are certainly at odds with how Justice Waite defined natives. Which one has higher legal precedent?? Hint: It's not Kent. Even if we assume Kent was authoritative, why would there be a need for THE citizen clause in the 14th amendment?? Second, even if we assume that subject and citizen being "in a degree, controvertible" terms, how does that exclude natural-born citizens from being a subset of "natives"?? Answer: it doesn't. Gray ultimately settles these differences by applying English common law only to 14th amendment citizenship by birth, but otherwise, he respects the unanimous decison in Minor as defining NBC as: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
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."
Well, not it doesn't say this at all. The only quote that says anything about natural-born citizens was one that recognized two different outcomes for being born on U.S. soil, based on a case where such persons could be born on U.S. soil as foreign subjects.
No kidding. Strawman, since I never said it was.
There's no strawman. These were YOUR words. "To remind you again, Rogers v. Bellei was clear - America follows jus soli." That doesn't allow for citizenship at birth for persons born abroad.
Concrete thinking again, and a strawman to boot. Since I never said that jus soli was the only way to obtain citizenship ...
No, in post #340, you said there were only two categories of citizenship: BORN and naturalized. Later you changed your categories to types and then changed "born" to "natural born," the latter of which YOU have incorrectly defined only as jus soli. The Rogers v. Bellei decision recognizes a category of "citizen at birth" that was NOT based on jus soli. Neither your "jus soli" NOR the "citizen at birth" in Bellei fit the SCOTUS definiton of NBC ... which is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.