The one and only time Congress used the exact words “Natural Born Citizen” is in the very FIRST Naturalization Act of 1790 during the second session of the 1st Congress. The specific wording is, in part:
“...And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens....”
The first naturalization acts have been replaced by others and others subsequent to them, so that now the governing law is encoded in Title 8 Section 1401. Further, this clearly shows that the founding fathers established that children born to US Citizens are considered natural born Citizens. In addition, it shows that there is not physical birth requirement on US soil, possession or jurisdiction to qualify as a natural born citizen.
Further title 8 section 1401 reads as it’s starting sentance - The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
Thus the status of citizenship is obtained at birth. A person who has citizenship at birth has no needs to be naturalized. There are only two categories of citizenship - naturalized or natural born. There is no “statutory” citizenship or any other type, class, or qualification of citizenship. Since there are only two types of citizenship, a person who is a citizen at birth has no need for, and can not further benefit from naturalization.
“...And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens....”
I would draw your attention to the words "Considered as". As you are no doubt aware, these words mean that something is "similar", but not the exact same thing.
Congress (and Washington) recognized that they could not "make" a "natural" citizen, but through their power of "naturalization" they could make something which could be "considered as" a "natural" citizen.
I will further point out, that if you read further down in the "naturalization act of 1790", you will discover that if the Child had a father which had never been a resident of the United States (foreign father) he was not recognized as having any citizenship at all, let alone "natural" citizenship.
Thus the status of citizenship is obtained at birth. A person who has citizenship at birth has no needs to be naturalized.
You are confused about this. When Congress passes a law that makes someone a citizen, it *IS* naturalization. It is NOT "natural born", it is "by the authority of congress to naturalize."
Congress selected the "at birth" point in time by the law they passed. They chose to do so because it was an obvious and convenient time to place the mantle of citizenship, but make no mistake. Congress could have picked another point in time if they had so wished.
I will further point out, that Congress SPECIFIED an age limit for the mother. If the mother is too young, the child doesn't get the citizenship. Also Congress had SPECIFIED a residency requirement. If the child did not live in the United States for a specified period of years, the child did NOT get the citizenship.
So, to recap, Congress specified "at birth", they specified the mother's age, and they specified a residency requirement.
Do you not see that having strings attached makes this sort of citizen something OTHER than a "natural citizen"?