You are referencing the case you cited. The subsequent case clarified the court's position on the matter. As another reference, here are two paragraphs taken from the majority's opinion in the 1898 case (emphasis mine):
23
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: '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.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
26
That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
Tell me you aren't actually reading what I wrote without telling me you aren't actually reading what I wrote.
Read this. Directly from Paragraph 23 of the Majority Opinion:
all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens...We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States
It literally says exactly - natural born citizens.
Now you are just desperately making shit up. News flash - it is OK to be wrong and just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true.
Re-read the paragraph.
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: '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.
Allegiance in this context means in the realm of and under the protection of. People 'born in the allegiance of the King of England' are born in his realm and under his protection. The same concept goes for the US as specifically stated in paragraph 23. So all that means is that anyone born in the realm of the US and under its protection are natural born citizens.
You are referencing the case you cited. The subsequent case clarified the court's position on the matter. As another reference, here are two paragraphs taken from the majority's opinion in the 1898 case (emphasis mine):
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: '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.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
26 That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
Citizens. . .not Natural Born Citizens. There are different types of citizens.
Tell me you aren't actually reading what I wrote without telling me you aren't actually reading what I wrote.
Read this. Directly from Paragraph 23 of the Majority Opinion:
all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens...We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States
It literally says exactly - natural born citizens.
Allegiance, under common law, generally followed the father. Since her father was not a US citizen she is not a Natural born citizen of the US.
Now you are just desperately making shit up. News flash - it is OK to be wrong and just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true.
Re-read the paragraph.
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: '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.
Allegiance in this context means in the realm of and under the protection of. People 'born in the allegiance of the King of England' are born in his realm and under his protection. The same concept goes for the US as specifically stated in paragraph 23. So all that means is that anyone born in the realm of the US and under its protection are natural born citizens.