[El Gato]

For advocates of this position the term "Natural Born" and "Native Born" are equivalent and identical.

Natural born had a particular meaning at the time the Constitution was written, for purposes of Constitutional requirements, it must retain that meaning. If Congress could change it, they could change a lot of other things in the Constituion, such as the menaing of "keep" and of "bear" and even of "arms".

Since Congress was not given the power to define Natural Born Citizen, but was given the power to define uniform rules for *naturalization*, it must be this power that Congress was exercising whenever it defined who shall be a citizen at birth. Thus such persons must be considered "naturalized at birth", rather than natural born, *unless* they also meet the requirements to be Natural born, as many, even most, do.

[Jack Black]

Natural born had a particular meaning at the time the Constitution was written, for purposes of Constitutional requirements, it must retain that meaning.

Please provide link to original source material.

[Jack Black]

Since Congress was not given the power to define Natural Born Citizen, but was given the power to define uniform rules for *naturalization*, it must be this power that Congress was exercising whenever it defined who shall be a citizen at birth. Thus such persons must be considered "naturalized at birth", rather than natural born, *unless* they also meet the requirements to be Natural born, as many, even most, do.

This explanation seems a bit tortured to me. It would seem less so if you could site the specific material from the founders that defines "natural born citizen". Despite many saying such exists, no one has yet published it on an FR thread, a very simple low overhead thing to do.

Why?