I posted this to you once, but apparently you didn't read it. So, again:
Natural Born Citizen - The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
Any why stop there? Why not insist on a bloodline that goes back to the Mayflower?
LOL ...I didn't live back then and I didn't write any of the Constitution or definitions, I'm giving you info of those who did. Don't get in a snit.
Repeating a non-sequitor doesn’t help the discussion.
Let’s consider:
1) “All Xs are Ys”... does that mean only Xs can be Ys? of course not. So stop presuming that a quote from a man saying “All Xs are Ys” is telling us than any non-X cannot be a Y. Fallacious. We know from Wong Kim Ark that the definition of birthright citizenship was changed by the 14th amendment to exend beyond parents who are citizens.
2) Your second logical fallacy is presuming that a definition of natural-born citizen is fixed by these quotes while ‘citizen at birth’ can change. In other words, ‘natural born’ I have argued is a term of art that equates to citizen at birth.
3) The third error is presuming that a quote from a Congressman is controlling in any manner. It’s better than a foreigner, but it’s still not legally binding. Bingham was not even talking about the 14th Amendment, and the language from that Act was different from what was put into 14thA. So it’s merely descriptive of his view of citizenship and no more so than a number of other quotes, from court rulings, etc.
So you have a non-controlling opinion from a politician about a law that it not the current law, stating a category of people who are natural-born but not addressing in any way the question at hand of whether there is a distinction or a class of people who are citizens at birth but NOT ‘natural-born citizens’. Nothing he says lend support to that assertion.
Again, “natural-born citizen’ and ‘citizen at birth’ are synonymous. There is no distinction in US law that separates the two, and nothing you have brought here changes that basic and simple point.