[Kleon]

You're not making much sense here. Maybe you can try again and explain what it is you think you're saying.

I think you should go back and read Donofrio's argument first. Donofrio claims that "some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status." To support this claim, he points out that the Act that granted this group natural born citizenship status had "Naturalization" in its name. That is the extent of his argument. Like I said, absolutely Clintonesque.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I think you're missing the point. Leo doesn't attempt to support his claim by pointing to the word "naturalization" in the title of a law. He's asserting that a law which grants citizenship is, in and of itself, an act of naturalizing a group of citizens. (i.e. A natural-born citizen does not require a law to clarify his status.)

The Minor Court also noted that the “substance” of the 1790 act, which granted US citizenship at birth via naturalization, had remained as law up until 1875 when the Minor case was decided. So, clearly, while citizens may either be born or naturalized, some born citizens are simultaneously naturalized at birth.

[edge919]

Amazing. Out of an essay of several hundred words, you point to one word and accuse Donofrio of being “Clintonesque.”