...considered as...
Of what import, or use, or need, are such words?
Think about it.
Had Congress never included those words, wouldn’t we have been the better for it? Wouldn’t the statute have been clearer?
But no. The words were included. Why?
Because only in Bizarro World are such individuals ever ACTUALLY natural born Citizens. The purpose of the statute, enacted, This Guy might add, only under Congress’ Constitutional Power of Naturalization, was to naturalize such individuals as fall within the new statute’s ambit.
After which they would be recognized as naturalized citizens.
Also, why do you think Congress amended the statute five years later, substantially solely to delete the reference to “natural born”?
Because the language was both unnecessary, and misleading. Hey—it misled woodpusher.
Because only in Bizarro World are such individuals ever ACTUALLY natural born Citizens. The purpose of the statute, enacted, This Guy might add, only under Congress’ Constitutional Power of Naturalization, was to naturalize such individuals as fall within the new statute’s ambit.After which they would be recognized as naturalized citizens.
I think the thrust of what you said was that Congress was only given authority to make a rule of naturalization, not a defiition of citizenship at birth. If I am reading it wrongly, please correct me.
If I read it correctly, your position would be wrong as the power to declare a rule of naturalization inevitably must define those who are citizens. If one defines who is born a citizen, one defines the obverse, who is a born an alien. There are only two possible classifications. Defining who is a member of one group identifies all others as members of the second group.
While it is not stated that Congress may define who is born a citizen, it inevitably follows from the grant of power to make a rule of naturalization.
Also, why do you think Congress amended the statute five years later, substantially solely to delete the reference to “natural born”?Because the language was both unnecessary, and misleading.
Constitutional construction abhors surplusage—words that add nothing to the meaning of a provision.
The term "natural born" was eliminated. As a natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, specifying "natural born" in this context was surplusage and "natural" could be omitted without change of meaning. Everyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.
The provision was defining citizenship with no attempt to address presidential eligibility. The accepted meaning of the term natural born citizen is one who becomes a citizen at birth. On that definition, there is no difference whatever between being born a citizen and being a natural born citizen.
As Scotus stated, there are two classes of citizen, and two only—naturalized and natural born citizens. Any attempt to invent a third class is fruitless.