I would like to point out something that edge919 put me on to the significance of.
In the Middle of a discussion on the 14th amendment, the court said:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
If you think about this, they are saying that the 14th amendment DOES NOT SAY who shall be "natural born citizens. But what DOES the 14th amendment say? It says anyone born here and subject to our jurisdiction is a "citizen."
I read this as an explicit rejection of the 14th amendment as defining the meaning of "natural born citizen." They are saying that 14th amendment citizenship is NOT THE SAME THING as "natural born citizenship."
Well, our opponents entire argument is that the 14th amendment declares anyone born here is a "natural born citizen." If the court explicitly says that it is NOT, (which I believe it does so above) then that leaves by default a requirement to prove "natural born citizen" status by a different method, of which [Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinus] is the only remaining possibility.
Here is the point I have made from the very beginning and still maintain today.
It is NOT settled law. No one knows how Scotus would rule- and some even argue that SCOTUS has no authority to make the decision.
All you really have to do is listen to the oral arguments Nguyen case to see that it is up in the air.
NO ONE KNOWS THE DEFINITION.
It could very well be two US citizens born on US soil. Ginsberg doesn’t not hold with that theory - at least it seems she didn’t in the oral argument.
Personally, I don’t think a court would rule that way today but that is a personal opinion.
Those that go around claiming that this is set in stone are wrong.
There is a very interesting exchange about the Word Naturalized in the oral argument. . Does the term Naturalized encompass natural born citizens. Rogers V Bellei suggest that it does according to the lawyer.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071