How is it possible? An infant can't participate in a naturalization ceremony.
-- This [1790] act PROVES that the founders, who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier, considered determining who was a natural born citizen to be within the purview of Congress under the naturalization powers. --
Do you agree that my "Whoever Congress says is an NBC is an NBC"? is an accurate paraphrase of your view of the law on this question? YES or NO.
I guess another way to ask the question is, how do we figure out which of the statutes is a naturalization statute, and which are declaring a person to be a NBC. I was of a mind that you would view "at birth" as signifying a declaration of NBC, but you said that "it is POSSIBLE for there to be a person naturalized at birth."
“An infant can’t participate in a naturalization ceremony.”
True. But infants can be naturalized. For example: foreign parents immigrate and become citizen. By law, their children usually become citizens with them. Another example: US citizens adopt a foreign child. The child also becomes naturalized. They do not need to swear an oath of allegiance, etc.
I believe that the original intent of Congress was that “naturally” conveyed citizenship was by the parents. (Jus sanguinis) This is supported by the words of the act in 1790. But also, the 14th amendment probably supports “naturally” conveyed citizenship by where a child is born. (Jus soli)
“Do you agree that my ‘Whoever Congress says is an NBC is an NBC’? is an accurate paraphrase of your view of the law on this question? YES or NO.”
NO. Congress cannot retroactively make anyone a “natural born citizen”. Also, if Congress said that children born in Mexico to parents who were not US citizens at the time are “natural born citizens”, they would be redefining the term. “Natural” as pertains to citizenship must be either Jus sanguinis, Jus soli, or both. Beyond that Congress would be redefining the term. The only way to do that would be through an amendment.
And the issue for Cruz, Obama, and Rubio depends on which of the three possibilities above apply. My argument is that Jus sanguinis must apply because the act in 1790 proves the founders regarded citizenship as being naturally conveyed at birth according to the citizenship of the parents.