“That said, I think your criteria for consideration are blinding you to how the law views citizenship of those born abroad. The cases are very informative, and completely uniform on the assignment of ‘naturalized’ to a birth abroad, even across majority and dissent.”
You made a very good case from court opinions. While I may feel the courts often get it wrong, they are still the courts, and their opinions matter more than someone who is just a citizen with an opinion. At least they do when it comes to making rulings today. They may cite prior court decisions and opinions. They are not likely to cite unlearner on Free Republic.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the courts got it wrong on the 14th amendment. I believe the 14th only applies to those born in the US or naturalized IN the US. I do not agree that all citizenships fall into those two categories. Congress had the authority to pass uniform rules of naturalization before and after the 14th. The 14th may preclude certain acts of Congress in this regard, but power of Congress to grant citizenship to those born outside the US are NOT impacted by the 14th.
I still think that 1790 proves the intent of the founders was that jus sanguinis should prevail on who is a “natural” citizen. Vattel clarified his definition of natural born citizen by adding that children born abroad “naturally” receive the citizenship of their father, including “all” of its rights. In other words, this is not an imperfect naturalization. England operated under jus soli because being a subject had to do with the king’s rights. In America, citizenship is about the citizen’s rights.
In the case of Cruz, his citizenship was conveyed naturally from his mother, and he was a citizen at birth.
Interestingly, neither did the majority in the Bellei case. The phrase "IN the United States" was the precise difference between the majority and dissent.
-- power of Congress to grant citizenship to those born outside the US are NOT impacted by the 14th. --
Agreed. Congress' power to naturalize is plenary. The Court decisions touch on this, as well, sometimes to the extent that this is the excuse for court taking a hands-off approach to stripping citizenship and deportation.
Just in case you have academic curiosity, the part of the 14th that cabins Congress's power to natrualize and denaturalize is the equal protection clause (hotly debated - since when do aliens get equal rights with citizens?), and 14th amendment due process. The Fifth Amendment due process clause gets lots of play too.
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) is a case where the courts played hands off.