You are wrong again. Plus, I am getting better and better every day at all these court cases thingies and there is no difference between the 14th and NBC. I just clobbered a Vattle Birther WITH LOGIC at another place who tried this same thing, plus I even found a Secret Book last night that I don’t think even the Obots know about and it was VERY helpful!!! Sooo, here is what I said to that Vattle Birther WITH quotes from law cases:
No we aren’t. It is obvious the Courts read the 14th and NBC as meaning the same thing. Where O Where do if find this information???
...
FIRST, in Federal law BEFORE Wong Kim Ark, in Ex Parte Chin King in 1888:
” By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen.
“The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents.
” This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country.
“THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND.
” The fourteenth amendment declares : persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Sooo, NO!!! You are just WRONG.
In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.
Notice the deft bait and switch. Gray does NOT recognize any of these decisions as declaring anyone to be a "natural-born citizen." By this point in the decision, Gray has already affirmed the Minor definition of NBC and is working on separate and different terminology.
The part of WKA you quoted cites a Mr. Binney who said:
... his child ... if born in the country,as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen
This still makes a distinction between one and the other. As much of a citizen does not = natural born citizen. A naturalized citizen is as much of a citizen as a natural born citizen too, but it is still not the same thing. Plus, Gray allows that this type of citizenship by birth is dependent on domicil:
... includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
IOW, Gray is building a justification for giving the 14th amendment teeth. This does NOT in any way preclude his previous point that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. At this point, Gray is talking about 14th amendment "citizenship by birth," which he uses in the very first sentence you quoted.
The dicta in the Indiana case simply doesn't say anything about how natural-born citizen is defined. It points out something that is limited in its relevance, and it ignores that the court made a distinction between NBC and 14th amendment citizenship by birth.
Sorry, but your Saran Wrap is ruined.