“There are 14th Amendment citizens according to the Supreme Court, which is naturalization (by law) at birth.”
I never can understand this weird distinction between citizens by nature and citizens by law. Maybe if we lived as subjects in a divinely-ordained kingdom, you could say that citizenship passes down from God to the baby through the blood of the parents. And this would be perfectly natural, not at all man-made. One could imagine the state as having existed for all time, and stretching into the infinite future.
However, you must be aware that there was no such thing as the United States, and therefore no natural U.S. citizens before passage of the man-made law known as the Constitution. How does that jive with your system? How do you deal with those (which includes everyone) who became citizens not by nature (which would have dictated their status as British subjects) but by law, as well all their offspring, who received their birthright upon the ratification of the Constitution? Aren’t we all naturalized?
I never can understand this weird distinction between citizens by nature and citizens by law. Lets attempt to puts some new understanding between your eyeballs and ears although I'm sure it is futile attempt.
But here goes anyways...
There are laws by man that are called "Positive Laws" and there are "Natural Laws" that are set by God to men. The Natural Born Citizenship Clause in Article 2 of the US Constitution is a reference to a Natural Law that is set by God and not by man. The excerpt below is from "Lectures on jurisprudence, or, The philosophy of positive law By John Austin, Robert Campbell"
Austin was a well-known 19th century expert in jurisprudence that is about the philosophy or science of law.
