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.
The Rogers v. Bellei decision recognizes a category of "citizen at birth" that was NOT based on jus soli.
Strawman. Try reading it again from Rogers v. Bellei
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.The case involved one of those affected by statute. You can scream all you want about Rogers v Bellei being wrongly decided, but that's what they said.
From English common law: jus soli = born on the soil = natural born. Go read up on Coke's case, and as you are fond of saying: "Read it. Understand it. Learn from it." Here's a helpful link to Blackstone's Commentaries.
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.
Yup, Waite equates native = natural born.
These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Note he has one category with two synonyms (natives or natural-born citizens) vs the other categoryof two synonyms (aliens or foreigners). He equates the two, as did Senators during the debate on the amendment. Gray used the terms interchangeably.
Also learn from the several quotes that you ignore or try to explain away that say the US "natural born" citizen is analogous to English "natural born subject."
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.
In Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS did not define natural born definitively, it said there was DOUBT. It also said
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts(do you understand what doubt means?) And of course, Minor v. Happersett was also "not about" natural born, so by your standards you can't rely on it - it was about the vote for women. Justice Gray cited Minor, along with several other quotes and sources that said we follow the English common law in this. WKA resolved that doubt. Rogers V. Bellei cemented it. Ankeny followed the same precedent.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.and
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
I might have asked you this before, but if you answered, I forget what you said. Here you write, “[’natural born’ and ‘native born’] 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.” Is it your contention that “natives” and “native born” mean two different things—are different classes of citizens?
I also wonder: hypothetically speaking, what would it take to convince you you’re wrong here? Several people with some knowledge of and training in the law have told you you’re wrong on that basis; at least one person who’s something of an English expert (me) has told you you’re wrong on that basis; a state appeals court has told you you’re wrong (you just dismiss them as “hillbillies”); and the subject of this whole thing, Barack Obama, was sworn in as president without objection from the Chief Justice or any congressman, implying that you’re wrong. Given that the judges in Slaughterhouse, Minor, and WKA aren’t around to tell you themselves that you’re wrong, what exactly would it take?