Replies

The 14th amendment did not change the meaning of “natural born” citizen. It didn’t even use the term.
Even before the 14th amendent was passed, white people born in the country were citizens at birth. But “all persons” were not. The 14th merely prohibited discrimination in citizenship matters. Some guy with an English or French citizen father and US mother, would not have been a natural born citizen. In fact he’d have been the very sort of person that the founders were trying to keep out of the office of President.

It did in the mind of Supreme Court judges. Decisions since the passage of the 14th use the terms: native born and natural born interchangeably. For example, the following is from the Supreme Court’s decision in Perkins v Elg:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”
The context for the above statement is that Steinkauler’s father took him to Germany as a child and the son was in danger of being drafted into the German army. When he reached 18, Steinkauler wanted the US to prevent him from being drafted into the German military since he was a “native” or “natural born” American citizen.

And from the actual decision concerning Miss Elg in “Perkins v Elg” (1939):
“And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….”

The Supreme Court declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

In Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884) The Supreme Court equated the terms “citizenship by birth” and “natural born citizen;”
They said:
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html

I would agree that it would be a very good idea for Congress or the Supreme Court to rule on whether a “Citizen-at-Birth” is also an Article 2, Section 1 “natural born citizen.” No such clarification has ever been made in law or in ruling by the High Court.

Current US law does not penalize a minor child who automatically inherits foreign citizenship from being considered a natural born citizen. The issue would only be relevant once the child reaches the age of majority and if the child makes an affirmative act to establish foreign (dual) citizenship; like voting in a foreign election or joining a foreign military.