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.
. . . .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.
THEN, here is what the Supreme Court (and some common sense) says, that naturalization has NOTHING to do with people born INSIDE the country:
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
Which means, now that you have been busted out on this fib, you will now go back to saying again that citizens under the 14th amendment are different from natural born citizens (because Vattle Birthers can not count to TWO (LOL!!!)). Sooo, let me head you off at the pass. They are the same. The Supreme Court judges say:
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.
And then it says that people who are born in the allegiance of the United States LIKE MARK RUBIO who was born in Miami which is INSIDE America, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS:
"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 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, even though the law is very clear about, Mark Rubio being a natural born citizen, YOU, being a Vattle Birther, will still try to muddy the waters for people here and mislead them about this, which I wonder WHY you don't just read the law and quit being one of the Vattle birthers. Are they holding your family hostage or something??? Do you owe them money???
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
Well, duh. England's statutes are very liberal in terms of subjectship. They wouldn't supersede or restrict an established rule of citizenship. In fact, they do the opposite. Their statutes ADD to that rule specifically by declaring the children of foreigners to be natural born subjects and children born of subjects regardless of the place of birth, but it was done with the understanding that the parents had to have "actual obedience" to the crown. The U.S. has no fundamental rule that requires "actual obedience." In the U.S., the only so-called "established rule of citizenship by birth" is natural born citizenship which = born in the country to citizen parents.
There is no established rule of citizenship by birth to foreigners except in certain states of which New York is a good example. The Lynch v. Clarke decision was a New York state case based on New York law which did recognize citizenship at birth to those who "abided" within the state. We learned this already through the Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor ruling that said:
The resolutions of the convention of New York of the 16th of July 1776, have been relied upon as asserting a claim to the allegiance of all persons residing within the state.
Not all states have such a resolution. But the law in New York meant that the parents had to intend to be permanent residents, according to Justice Story
Their 'temporary stay' is manifestly used in contradiction to 'abiding,' and shows that the latter means permanent intentional residence.
So, the so-called fundamental rule of citizenship by birth comes with strings. It is obviously not the same thing as NBC.
Which means, now that you have been busted out on this fib, you will now go back to saying again that citizens under the 14th amendment are different from natural born citizens ...
Sorry, but the Supreme Court said this in very plain and simple words that even you can understand. NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. "Citizenship by birth" is defined by circumstances IN the Constitution (via the 14th amendment). They ARE different. The court said NBC were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. Your quote about a so-called "established rule of citizenship" is qualified by this statement ... "So far as we are informed ..." This section is ONLY being used to bolster the 14th amendment. It doesn't supercede or restrict the fundamental rule of natural born citizenship as was cited by the Supreme Court.
They are the same. The Supreme Court judges say:
What you quoted does NOT say anything is the same. READ IT. UNDERSTAND IT. COMPREHEND IT:
... the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory ...
The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. It may affirm a fundamental rule of birth, but it doesn't supercede the NBC definition. And it is LIMITED:
... including all children here born of resident aliens
Nothing here says "including all persons born to citizen parents." It doesn't say "including all persons born to foreign subjects." It doesn't even say "all persons born in the United States." Read it AGAIN:
... 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 ...
If this was supposed to apply to all persons including those born of citizen parents and foreign subjects, why does it ONLY say "including all children here born of resident aliens"???
And ONE MORE TIME so you can wrap your head around this:
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, ...
This passage is from a decision referring to people BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. It contradicts your belief because it means that simply being born in the U.S. does not automatically make the child a U.S. citizen. The persons born in the allegiance of the United States are those persons born to parents who adhered to the United States after the Declaration of Independence. IOW, these are persons born to citizens. That is why they are referred to SEPARATELY as natural-born citizens from those adhered to the crown.