THAT federal law was in effect AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified and was neither challenged to be, nor ruled, unconstitutional.The law you cite is referenced to April 9, 1866, which is the date of passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which came just BEFORE the 14th Amendment.
You obviously don't understand the history, or law. It looks like you can't even READ, or you would've read the date referenced, looked it up, and found that was the date of passage of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866.
Multiple Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator ruled those born in the U.S. to alien fathers (and NOT just Native Americans) were NOT U.S. citizens at birth. They referred specifically to federal law and the 14th Amendment when doing so.
Actually, looking at these rulings, they don't seem to have ruled that at all. It appears more that they ruled that persons born on US soil to alien parents, who were carried abroad as children, had a right to elect their citizenship: United States or the foreign country of their parents. And they had to make that election promptly upon turning 21. If they came back here, fine. And everyone would've regarded them as being natural born US citizens. If they stayed abroad, not fine. They lost their US citizenship, and/or the right to elect such.
This policy in itself was not in line with the historical law and policy of the United States prior to the 1860s and 1870s. But even so, it doesn't seem to have been quite what you describe it to be.
For whatever reason, Jeff, you're choosing to cling to a position on this that just simply isn't supported by fact or actual historical evidence.
No, it's YOUR position that isn't supported by fact or actual historical evidence, as shown by the fact that someone can put the history right in front of your eyes, and you still claim it doesn't say what it says.
I'm going to try one more time here with Trumbull.
SENATOR TRUMBULL CLEARLY STATED THAT THOSE BORN HERE IN THE UNITED STATES TO NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANT PARENTS WERE THEMSELVES UNITED STATES CITIZENS. THIS WAS IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866.
SO SINCE THAT WAS THE ACT THAT SAID, "NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER," SENATOR LYMAN TRUMBULL WAS CLEAR (IN SPITE OF THE APPARENT WORDING, WHICH WAS PROMPTLY CHANGED IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT) THAT HE DID NOT REGARD NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANTS OR THEIR CHILDREN TO BE "SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER," AND THAT HE DID REGARD THEM TO BE "SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES:"
Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Cowan: I think not.
Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
Not even Senator Cowan contested the point, in regard to the children of European immigrants. He, and some others, made a rather racist argument that the children of Asians should not be citizens, simply because they were Asians and not Europeans.
Trumbull himself was equally clear that this was not only the way the law was, but that it was the way it SHOULD be, and that it applied to people of all races.
He did get one minor point wrong. It wasn't under the naturalization laws that this was so, but under the definition of natural born citizenship which had always existed in the country, and which had never been changed.
Now. Are you going to admit that Senator Lyman Trumbull stated clearly, during the course of the debates on this Act, that the children of immigrants were themselves United States citizens, or are you going to continue to deny it?