SCOTUS precedents say otherwise. The precedents track the 14th amendment, which has born in the US (and subject to the jurisdiction), and naturalized. Wong Kim Ark sets this out, and applies it for persons born in the US. Rogers v. Bellei refers to Wong Kim Ark, and applies the same principle and source of law (14th amendment) to a person born abroad, finding that person to be naturalized.
While the blockquote below is from the dissent, the dissenting point it asserts is that Bellei was naturalized IN the United states, not in Italy, where he was born. The assignment of "naturalized" to Bellei is not contentious, all 9 justices agree that Bellei was a naturalized citizen. The disagreement is whether he is naturalized and IN the 14th amendment (dissent point of view), or naturalized but bot a 14th amendment citizen.
Bellei was not 'born * * * in the United States,' but he was, constitutionally speaking, 'naturalized in the United States.' Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word 'naturalize' in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to 'establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,' Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled 'An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,' was passed in 1970 at the Second Session of the First Congress.Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Note too that SCOTUS views the [repealed] 1790 act as an act of naturalization, despite the fact that the 1790 Act says the children born abroad of citizens are to be considered as natural born citizens.
That the 1790 Act is a naturalization act is undeniable.
While the bill was debated in the House February 4, 1790 Rep. Aedanus Burke (SC) said, "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III."
Here we see the foreign-born children of citizens where not citizens, provision had to be made for them in a naturalization statute.
Burke refers to "An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject"
[] no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as are born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civil or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for himHere the English law itself acknowledges that the foreign-born child of English parents is naturalized.
The foreign-born children of citizens have always required naturalization.