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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been DOUBTS, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
It does not say that children of aliens who are born here are NOT NBC's. It says "some say yes" and "some say no" and there are "doubts", which I think is pretty obvious because 24 years later in Wong Kim Ark, there were doubts. If there weren't any doubts about kids of Chinese people, there would NOT have been a case. I mean like DUH!!!
In 1874 there were DOUBTS as to whether or not a heavier-than-air machine would ever fly. Do we still have those doubts??? Not me. Those doubts got answered in 1903 at a place called Kitty Hawk.
Same here. Whatever doubts there might have been got answered in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark. Sooo, I mean where are you coming from quoting a 1874 women's voting rights case to try to over rule a Supreme Court case of 24 years later??? How do you even form that ludicrous a thought???
But let's go further and assume, for this thread, that Minor said "OH heck no--no way the kid of some alien is a natural born citizen just because he was born here in the U.S. Assume that for a minute.
What happens the second that Wong Kim Ark is decided 24 years later. The Minor case would be bad law. Even if it had came right out and said that, in 1874, that there wasn't any doubts and the only NBCs were kids born here to two citizens. Twenty four years later, its no longer the law. For example, is Dred Scott still good law???
Sooo, there is one question about why you try to turn "doubts and they aren't relevant to this case" INTO "Whoopee!!! This case proves there are NOT any doubts." But there is a second question of why are you screwing around with a 1874 case in the first place, when there is a 1898 case that actually addresses the issue???
Don't you think it is kind of a goofy law theory to use a earlier case instead of the later case??? Don't you feel kind of silly trying to convince people to disregard the later case for the earlier one??? Are Vattle Birthers like Benjamin Button and time goes backwards for them??? Oh Tee Hee!!!
It does when it says, "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." It goes on to cite the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it makes a distinction between "native women and native minors" as opposed to "alien women and alien minors" ... AGAIN, keeping in mind that NATIVES are those who are born in the country to citizen parents.
Also, you're misunderstanding the importance of the "doubts" comment. Virgina Minor claimed to be a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected this argument because they were making a distinction between two classes of citizenship. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to talk about not needing to solve doubts, because they could have solved the doubts easily by accepting Minor's arugment. They did NOT do this.
Third, the Minor decisions notes a separate type of citizenship at birth through the naturalization act of 1790.
... the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
If the United States subscribed to English common law, there should have been no need for such a provision to be inserted into a naturalization act. William Blackstone had noted in 1765 that English common law already recognized persons born abroad as natural born subjects.
But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
Do you understand. The U.S. did NOT follow English common law. The Naturalization Act covered everyone who was not naturally a citizen by birth which was aliens, their wives and children, and children born abroad of citizen parents.
And yes, Wong Kim Ark resolved doubt for the child of Chinese subjects ... because there would be NO DOUBT if Ark was a child of citizens and fit the definition of natural born citizen. Marco Rubio falls in the category of doubt. His citizenship is not natural, but is instead dependent on a Constitutional amendment and/or naturalization law.