The Supreme Court makes the distinction. It says one term is defined by the Constitution while the other is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution:
NBC: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Citizenship by birth: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."
NBC, the court said is being born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Citizenship by birth is defined by the birth clause of the 14th amendment: Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... with the latter half being defined as having parents who have domicil and permanent residence, such as had Wong Kim Ark:
... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States ...
" NBC: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Citizenship by birth: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."
==========
By putting the "But" where you did you made it read the way you wanted, like NBC was one thing and "citizenship by birth" was another. BUT, here is the actual COMPLETE quotation:
As stated by the Court in the historic decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702,
Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
Sooo, now it is clear that the second part, citizenship by birth is being contrast with NATURALIZATION, not with NATURAL BORN CITIZEN like you tried to get away with!!!
Because I googled your words and it sent me here which made it clear what you were trying to do:
I guess I am going to have to google it every time you quote something.
You said:
NBC: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Citizenship by birth: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."
=========
What the The Supreme Court ACTUALLY says:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
=========== Plus, here is your quote, which you cut off, and didn't give a COMPLETE quote of:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
BUT, here is the COMPLETE quote:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
THEN the judges [in section II] go through about a zillion cases of that English history stuff and sum it up as:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
After saying this about the English Law, then they start in on American law cases
[And then they start section III and they say] III. The same 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.
And then they say, quoting another case:
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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Which is what I told you before: Every body, regardless of parentage born here, is born in the allegiance of the US (with two exceptions) and if you are born here in the allegiance of the U.S, then you are a natural born citizen.
Very simple. No Vattle stuff. No difference in 14th amendment citizens and NBCs. None of what you say.
If anybody here doubts this, then here is the link to the case and you can just read it for yourself: