Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
link to source
Foggers cite this because it uses the term "native citizen" instead of "natural-born citizen" ... but Wong Kim Ark and its definition of "native-born citizen" is conspicuously absent in this citation, despite the fact that it predates this decision. Luria first cites Minor that said:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
In this definition (which is basically from the Law of Nations), natives = natural-born citizens = BOTH are defined by birth in the country to citizen parents. Wong Kim Ark defined natives as birth in the country to resident aliens. The Luria court is ONLY accepting the Minor citation, not Wong Kim Ark. Second, it ties this directly to presidential eligibility. This means that all the current courts that try to cite Wong Kim Ark are in error. The Supreme Court unanimously cites Minor as THE legal precedent on presidential eligibility.
Luria also cites Elk v. Wilkins which, while noting the Constitutional differences between birth and naturalization, also says:
The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States ... are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
These quotes simply destroy the idea that a person who is simply born on U.S. soil would automatically be eligible for the presidency. Such persons have to at least be COMPLETELY subject to the United States. Any kind of divided allegiance thus negates that the person in question is a natural-born citizen.
Again, the omission of Wong Kim Ark as a citation on presidential eligibility is conspicuous in its absence. THE legal precedent is first and foremost the Minor decision: all children born in the country to PARENTS who were its citizens. 27 Supreme Court justices have agreed on this definition. There is no higher legal authority in this country.
"Any kind of divided allegiance thus negates that the person in question is a natural-born citizen."
In any honest, logic-based approach to the question of why the founders inserted the NBC verbiage in A2S1C5, the issue of potential for divided loyalties comes out on top as the most straightforward, simplest explanation.
That's why in Minor, Justice Waite said ". . .with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. . ." to dispose of Minor's attempt to use the 14th Amendment to buttress her argument, and instead defined her citizenship as a type preceding the 14th.