Replies

that is contrary to what the courts have determined- Residency requirements are not issues which ‘confer citizenship- they confirm citizenship-

[[two former top Supreme Court litigators, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, said: “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/15/that-vexing-natural-born-citizen-requirement-what-were-the-founding-fathers-afraid-of/

And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”]]

[[Naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship AT birth. ]]

Not on people who are already citizens- only on those who are foreigners and no citizen parent

Naturalization statutes only directly affect foreigner’s children- the children born of a us citizen overseas have always had a greater burden of proving their connection to their US citizen parent- this stricter requirement however does not mean that the person was granted citizenship via statute/process- but rather that statutes were enacted to enhance the definition of common/natural law that the states have long employed as to what confers a right

it has always been within the power of congress to address the parameters of those who have a natural claim to citizenship at birth. The statute itself does not confer citizenship it simply defines the parameters that must be met- IF they have been met, there is no need for a process of naturalization because the person is an NBC.

[[[1] The foreign-born child is not a citizen by birth, the foreign-born child is a citizen by statute.]]

Again- the statute is not conferring citizenship- it is affirming citizenship-

A Statute does not naturalize- it simply determines who must be naturalized via process- Nowhere has it been deemed that a person born overseas to a US parent must be naturalized via process- Ted Cruz has never had to go through a naturalization process- the courts have determined that there are only two ways to become a citizen- naturally, and via a process

You seem to be stuck on the idea that a statute is the act of naturalizing- it is not- only a process is the act of naturalizing (with some rare exceptions)- A person who is foreign born to foreign parents, can not, except in rare exceptions, be declared a citizen without going through the actual process of naturalization- The statute simply declares that they, foreign children born to foreign parents, must be naturalized- it is not an actual process of naturalization however- this is very important- a statute which determines who must be naturalized is not the actual act of naturalization

As has been stated several times now, Supreme court cases have found that there is no difference between a child born of a us citizen overseas and one born here when it comes to NBC status and all the rights and privileges that go with it- previous cases were based on lax poorly defined laws that allowed the courts to determine ‘intent to expatriate’ far too easily- subsequent courts and statutes rectified that problem

[[[1] The foreign-born child is not a citizen by birth, the foreign-born child is a citizen by statute.]]

again- the statute isn’t conferring the citizenship it simply confirms what is the natural right to claim by the child- both jus soli and jus sanguinis confer the term ‘natural’ in NBC- the statute simply recognizes such children as citizens as per natural and common law and the law of nations fro mwhich we derive our laws, it does not confer the actual citizenship