Thanks for sharing your experience.
I still must be misinterpreting something here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
because if your parents were American Citizens at the time of your birth, and had spent the requisite amount of time in the US, you should be considered a natural born citizen. Whether born in the CZ or on Mt. Everest. But then I’m not a lawyer [not even a Mango Tree Laywer ;-) ], and my interpretation of US Code doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Still and all, I’m not sure why it was decided you and your siblings needed to be “naturalized” other than the “some nut in congress”, which can be used to explain a lot of things. To me, you are a natural born citizen (see disclaimer above).
:-)
Only speaks to citizens at birth, as defined by Congress. Not Natural Born Citizens, which, truth be told, has never been defined. Congress has no power to define the term, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility anyway. The term must mean what it meant when the Constitution was written.
If Congress could willy nilly redefine terms in the Constitution, they could perform all sorts of mischief.
They do have the power to define rules of naturalization, so that is what they must have done in Title TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III § 1401. Thus a person who is a citizen at birth because of the rules in that section, or any other law passed by Congress, must be considered Naturalized at birth. If the person were born in the US, they are not naturalized, and are a citizen at birth, via the 14th amendment. But still not necessarily a Natural Born citizen, unless they fit the definition of that term as it existed when the main body of the Constitution was written.