[P-Marlowe]

How about trusting Justice Waite in Minor vs Happersett???

You mean where he said the following:

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, and that 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. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.

[Uncle Chip]

Read it carefully and compare it to his words in #334.

He is saying that those born of citizen parents overseas are no less “citizens” than natural born citizens, ie those born of citizen parents at home.

Key words: “shall be considered as”

[BuckeyeTexan]

As you know, in Rogers v. Bellei, SCOTUS said that the citizenship granted at birth to those born abroad to U.S. citizens was the result of a congressional generosity to which such persons have no constitutional right and that it would have been within Congress's power to force such persons to undergo the more arduous naturalization process.

Therein lies the unanswered question for many birthers. If such citizens have no constitutional right to their citizenship, how is their statutory citizenship at birth equivalent to those for whom no statute is necessary, such as 14th Amendment citizens?

Is it your position that we should resolve any such doubts in favor of those citizens? Are you saying that a constitutional right to citizenship was not intended by the FF?