I have seen only allusions to their not being the same in one decision, and I’m not sure if it was in the holding or in the dissent.
They never did. SCOTUS over the years did not use native born and natural born in the same context. They always have made a distinction between the two...and you are lying. In all Supreme Court cases they never called 'native born' of foreign born citizens and 'natural born' to US citizens born on US soil as the same. They don't mix them up and they never have. I'm being redundant but you can read some more redundancy below.
The 10th Court of Appeals opinion, as of about 2 days, have said in unequivocal words that you are wrong.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
Excerpted the key statement -- “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
Shall I interpret for you? ... Let see if you can get it right.
Thank you, Red. Please read what I’ve written carefully, and let’s discuss our differences amicably, regardless of how much we disagree. Okay with you? Thanks.
I will comment on the text you posted to me at the end of my post. That text comes at the end of text in the footnote that I want to discuss first.
The following is in footnote 2 on page 6 (he’s quoting from Osborn v. Bank of U.S.):
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.”
TE says: Above, the writer is naming two types of citizens. Is that right? Those two are: “the native born and of the naturalized person.” Agreed?
“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
TE says: The writer now uses the word “difference,” saying, “The only difference drawn by the Constitution is,” which indicates he is referring to a “difference” between the two previously named types of citzens, the “native born and of the naturalized person.” Is that right?
TE continues: Thus, the writer’s complete statement is that the only difference between the “native born and of the naturalized person” is “is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
TE further states: But look what he’s done: He’s brought in a third type of citizen, hasn’t he? Instead of saying “is that only the ‘native’ citizen is eligible to be President.” Right? But ... But ... Wasn’t he beginning a sentence that told us the difference between the following two types of citizens, which he had originally named (see the first paragraph quoted above): “the native born and of the naturalized person”?? Wasn’t he doing that?
TE concludes: Thus, his statement makes no sense at all unless, to him, “native born” and “natural born” mean the same thing. Isn’t that right?
Now to the text of footnote 2 that you quoted: “ “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
TE says: That text is a further quote from Osborn that comes after the text I quoted above from Osborn. This text, in effect, summarizes or presents the thrust of the text I quoted above.
TE says now: Thus, your text example, and the text that I quoted above, appears to support my position that “native” and “natural born” in fact *do* mean the same thing. That is, Circuit Judges Kelly, Briscoe, and Holmes appear to agree with my interpretation.