I’ve given this link before, but I’ll give it again as it pertains to the issues being discussed here as to whether an act of statute always confers a naturalization process
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so.163
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”164
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).165
The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,”166 and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could
not be considered to be “naturalized.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent
case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural born United States citizen:
(1) that the person was born in the United States or
(2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met
certain residency requirements.167
Although the legal cases specifically concerning Senator McCain’s eligibility were generally dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction (that is, the lack of legal standing of the plaintiff),168 a federal district court for the Northern District of California did note that Senator
McCain would qualify as a citizen “at birth,” and thus was a “natural born” citizen, since he was born “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” to U.S. citizen parents, as provided for in federal nationality statutes in force at the time of his birth.169
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject,
also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native
born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously
resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the
birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.233
from the same link
The federal court in Robinson v. Bowen thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural
born” citizen in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow
“common law” meaning (jus soli, being born geographically in the United States without
reference to parental citizenship, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment), but also the statutory
designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” even if born
abroad when such citizenship is transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).
Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" Citizenship Eligibility Requirement - CRS-R42097 - Jack Maskell - November 14, 2011
Bob the legal scholar also pointed to the reference at Donald Trump Floats Ted Cruz Eligibility Lawsuit - Post 43 - 01/23/2016 8:11:47 PM
One cite discussed at Obama cites US v Marguet-Pillado. Dicta implies Obama eligible even if born in Kenya - FR - 03/11/2012
The reference to the Marguet case, by Jack Maskell, is in his typical incomplete and misleading style. Here is from the case:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado's requested instruction was "an accurate statement of the law," in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements. Nonetheless, the government asserts that the requested instruction "was not supported by the law" because "[t]he issue of Marguet-Pillado's claim of derivative citizenship was decided as a matter of law" in Marguet I.United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011)
Two years previous, same court, same plaintiff, same underlying issue, that being deportation - he was deported, by the way - from Marguet I, we find this:
It is a commonplace that the traditional ways of transmitting and acquiring citizenship at birth are jus soli and jus sanguinis. In this country, the former is provided for by the Constitution,^2 and the latter is provided for by the enactments of Congress.^32. U.S. Const. amend. XIV S: 1.
3. See Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 424, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 1432, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998).
United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, Case No. 08-50130 (9th Cir. 2009)
A cherry-picked, throwaway jury instruction is being elevated into a rule of presidential eligibility, as being superior to all the case law to the contrary. Got it.
As far as I can see, we're rehashing the contention that a person who obtains citizenship solely by operation of a statute, at birth, is not naturalized. According to Bob and the rest of the legal scholars, those persons were not born an alien. This is an obvious error, but hey, liars and stupid people, not necessarily mutually exclusive, are prone to lie and mislead. Maskell's work is obviously dishonest if one looks at the cites he offers and what they actually say, compared with his cherry picking and his taint on the case law.
Cruz's claim that he was not born an alien is risible! Asked to prove he is a US citizen, the candidate produced a birth certificate from Canada.
I have an even better cite, playing the liar-liar-pants-on-fire game that Bob and Maskell and Cruz many others are fond of playing. That being Justice Thomas in the Zivotofsky case.
... "Congress has the power to set the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by persons not born within the territory of the United States"). It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. S:S: 1401(c), (d), (g).Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
For the reveal, either look at the concurring opinion itself, or remarks at Cole: Coulter makes ridiculous claims on Cruz - Post 196 - FR - 01/24/2016.
Proposed constitutional amendment:
"A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for twenty years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States."