1. Minor vs. Happersett said there are doubts, but did not say they are not natural born, but rather that that case would not address the issue. So from "doubts" you go to "certainty" when the case did not support that.
And no SCOTUS case have ever said they are natural born by virtue of being born on the soil...And which cases? Those BS illegal alien deportation case(s) presided by some Carter activist judge who cited some illegal alien lawyer without backing up the statement with anything of substance that had nothing to do with NBC clause in the US Constitution.
Hm, I don't think there were Carter activist judges in 1866 United States vs. Rhodes
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.Or how about 1920 in Kwock Jan Fat v. White
And here's a SCOTUS case SCHNEIDER V. RUSK, that mentions Article two, and equates "native born" and "natural born"It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee [Chinese] and his wife, Tom Ying Shee [also Chinese], he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong,...
*** For failure to preserve such a record for the information not less of the Commissioner of Immigration and of the Secretary of Labor than for the courts, the judgment in this case must be reversed. It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.
"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
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.
Which I've addressed before about British common law. It's not natural law, or does it make Obama a natural born citizen.
An 1866 circuit court ruling? Laugh. In Elk v. Wilkins, another Supreme Court case, a foreign national within the United States maintains his allegiance to his country and is not totally under the jurisdiction of the US. Supreme Justice Horrace Gray who wrote the opinion in Elk v. Wilkins of indigenous people born of allegiance to Indian nations within the United States where not completely under the 'subjected to the jurisdiction thereof,
"an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law. "
And Justice Gray further states,
"The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." 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."
Lets rephrase what you cited in your post for accuracy in light of Elk v. Wilkins, 1884:
"All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the [complete and total ] allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together [but completely subjected to one and only one political jurisdiction is a natural born citizen]. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England."
Split allegiances at birth caused by duel citizenships is not natural or do they make one a natural born citizen.
- - - - - -
And this other case you cited. Grin again...
Ummmmm You should look at the facts of the case before you fire away. Here are the facts:
"MR. JUSTICE CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.
In January, 1915, Kwock Jan Fat, the petitioner, intending to leave the United States on a temporary visit to China, filed with the Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco an application, as provided for by law, for a "preinvestigation of his claimed status as an American citizen by birth."
He claimed that he was 18 years of age, was born at Monterey, California, was the son of Kwock Tuck Lee, then deceased, who was born in America of Chinese parents and had resided at Monterey for many years; that his mother at the time was living at Monterey, and that there were five children in the family, three girls and two boys...."
So what we have here is that the son Kwock Jan Fat and his father Kwock Tuck Lee were both born in the United States and his father was made a US citizen because of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision.
That makes the petitioner a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of the United States and the petitioner was born in the US to citizen parents. And again the Supreme Court say who are natural born citizens because of jus soli and jus sanguinis births.
"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
I've seen this a few times, but most of the time, except this time, point to the part "natural born citizen" as the difference cited in the US Constitution. Off course citizens are equal and that they coexist in the same way whether they are native, are naturalized, or are natural.
There is only a single instance in Constitutional law that I know of is that one has to be a natural born citizen to be president. As I said before, by 1964, natural v. native have two different meanings used by the courts.
Native is a person born in country like Wong Kim Ark but was also a subject of China. And Natural Born as I pointed out, and above that you provided, in the Supreme Court case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White...that he is a natural born citizen because of being born in country and born to US citizen parents.