“Blacks were not provided birthright citizenship until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and subsequently the 14th Amendment, and Native Americans weren’t provided birthright citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.”
Both of those situations were dealt with in other parts of the opinion. Free blacks WERE citizens, but slaves were not - because slaves were considered property, not people (see Dred Scott, which the 14th Amendment overturned). Indians were considered to be foreign nations physically located within the USA. Sorry that the entire decision cannot be totally encompassed in two paragraphs, which is why they wrote much more. The link to the entire decision was provided.
One of those cases was Slaughterhouse because it lumped "consuls" into the exceptions of the subject clause, while Gray says they shouldn't be excepted ... only foreign ministers.
When he gets to Elk v. Wilkins (a decision that HE wrote himself), he says the 14th amendment only excluded Indians from the subject clause because they had a "peculiar" relationship with the "National Government" that wasn't recognized by the common law. This is a little strange since the British empire included several places that had indigenous peoples within them.
But moving ahead, when Gray gets to the Minor argument, he does NOT challenge the exclusion of NBCs from the 14th amendment, but instead upholds it. The reason is that NBCs are not excluded by the subject clause, but they are excluded by an extraconstitutional definition of natural citizenship.
NBCs are certainly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and would fit within the 14th amendment's subject clause, so much so, that it begs the question as to why Gray did not make U.S. citizenship of either parent one of the criteria for satisfying the subject clause. Instead, U.S. citizenship is treated as an irrelevant criteria ignored in favor of permanent residence and domicil.
Neither of Obama's parents had permanent residence and domicil, so even if he was born in the U.S., he does NOT meet the terms of the subject clause. SAD's U.S. citizenship is irrelevant because it was excluded from being a criteria that satisfies the subject clause. If Gray was going to be comprehensive, why did he NOT include citizenship?? Well, partly because of THIS quote:
The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.
- - -
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.
It doesn't get much clearer than that. Children born in this country of parents who were NOT citizens were previously not subject to the jurisdiction and therefore they were not citizens — especially not natural-born citizens — anymore than the children of slaves. And to be clear, when Gray gives his conclusion on the 14th amendment, the children of citizens are conspicuously absent; it's only the children of persons who are permanently domiciled in the U.S.
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.
Read it closely, Gray ONLY applies the 14th amendment to children of resident aliens ... or "every citizen or subject of another country while domiciled here" ... this covers slaves and permanent immigrants who have not yet naturalized. Gray reserves Minor's NBC definition for children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not a 14th amendment citizen. He MIGHT be a statutory citizen under the collective naturalization statute on Hawaii, contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ... if the Kenyan coward was ever brave enough to provide legal evidence in a court of law.
Obama was born a foreign citizen in the USA. The Democratic National Committee OPENLY ADMITTED on their Fight The Smears website that Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his father.