Not in the English speaking world. The "neither" and "nor" are part of an introductory clause that has NO effect on what the rest of the sentence, which means EXACTLY what I said it means. The court was COMMITTED to the view that NBCs and children born of aliens were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. The justices who voted unanimously for this exclusion dealt with a different issue in the Slaughterhouse case. That's Gray's point. He said Slaughterhouse was not comprehensive because those justices could not know they were going to deal with a different aspect of the 14th amendment two years later. The Slaughterhouse exclusions were based ONLY on the subject clause. The Minor and Elk exclusions are based on the birth clause, NOT the subject clause. The court was committed to those exclusions which is MANIFEST (which means "made clear") by a UNANIMOUS decision in Minor. Read it. Learn it. UNDERSTAND IT. You can do it. Don't give up on yourself.
You trumpet an ambiguous quote from Minor, a case which was not about children of aliens, but you won't accept a straightforward quote from RvB because it wasn't about citizen born on the soil.
The Minor case wasn't about aliens, but it did talk about aliens and how they could become citizens. Are you honest enough to admit that?? Here's the direct quote that proves it. Are you going to try to lie your way out that too??
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States ..."Our law in this area" - the law of the United States in the matter of citizenship.
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
Are you this dense in real life?? I already addressed this point. It's why I said the Supreme Court declared that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Your other points fail because you incorrectly ignore that NBC is NOT the same thing as jus soli. No one is arguing that statutory law is not based in jus soli criteria (except of course for those born abroad to citizen parents). The law is nothing if not inconsistent.
The court in Minor was not ruling on the definition of "natural born." They were ruling on Virginia Minor's citizenship, a specific case in which she was born in the US and had two citizen parents.
You're not being honest. Viriginia Minor argued her citizenship was NOT based on having citizen parents. Read the argument, or are you going to try to lie about this too??? We need to rack up the number of lies you've come up with in denying the facts:
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
So, "back at you buddy" where do you see ANYTHING about parents in the argument as presented to the court?? Why did the court NOT accept this argument and why did they say ANYTHING about citizen parents OTHER than how it is used to define NBC???
Read the example:
Here's the direct quote that proves it. Are you going to try to lie your way out that too?? Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States ... As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11] From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
I have not disputed that this case involves Virginia Minor's citizenship (although it is primarily about whether she can vote). Nor will I dispute it discusses naturalization. And this quote proves what about natural born? Nothing. So you can cry "liar" all you want, but it's false - I don’t need to lie (not that I would anyway) because I’m telling you what the current law is, and what it’s based on. Not what I wish it were. Not what I want it to be. But what actually is, instead of some tinfoil hat theory that has been and will be kicked out of or ruled against by every court.
Are you this dense in real life?? I already addressed this point. It's why I said the Supreme Court declared that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
Ah, more Ad Hominem attacks – sure sign of a weak argument.
Your other points fail because you incorrectly ignore that NBC is NOT the same thing as jus soli. .
Wrong. As the :RvB opinion said, the US follows the “English concepts” and accepts Jus soli. Are you honest enough to admit the English concept? Born on the soil (usual diplomatic and military exceptions) means natural born subject. And as WKA quoted, that had not been changed by statute (and still hasn’t) so it still applies here as natural born citizen.
You're not being honest. Viriginia Minor argued her citizenship was NOT based on having citizen parents. Read the argument, or are you going to try to lie about this too??? We need to rack up the number of lies you've come up with in denying the facts:
More insults rather than reasoned arguments. Are you maintaining that the court was ruling on “natural born” rather than Virginia Minor’s right to vote? She was definitely a citizen, but I don’t see the court ruling on who doesn’t qualify as natural born.
“The court was UNANIMOUS on this definition in Minor. You're trying to connect dots that were NEVER connected by the court. Never.” So, "back at you buddy" where do you see ANYTHING about parents in the argument as presented to the court?? Why did the court NOT accept this argument and why did they say ANYTHING about citizen parents OTHER than how it is used to define NBC??? :
I repeat. The Court was not ruling on natural born. They were ruling on her right to vote. The quote you love so much specified her situation and said it was not going to resolve doubts on other situations. And do try to lose the insults – they don’t help your case. You want it to be true, so you argue tinfoil hat theories. All you do is make a laughingstock out of anyone associated with this.