So when does a child born in the U.S. need to become “naturalized” as a citizen?
Of course, they don’t. Because they are the other kind of citizen, of which there are only two kinds in the law.
Of course, they don’t. Because they are the other kind of citizen, of which there are only two kinds in the law.
If you want me to answer a question, you are going to have to make it understandable first. I have no idea what you are trying to ask me.
Absolutely! There are male citizens, and Female citizens. Two kinds, like you said.
There are different types of naturalization: individual and collective; voluntary and involuntary. Obama, for example, IF he can legally prove he was born in Hawaii would fall under involuntary, collective naturalization.
Of course, they don’t. Because they are the other kind of citizen, of which there are only two kinds in the law.
The key is "in the law." Natural-born means "without law" ... it is a type of citizenship that does NOT depend on law to make it so. This is what the court explained in Minor v. Happersett. Natural-born also means "without doubt." Other types of citizens at birth come WITH doubts that must be resolved: whether a law or constitutional amendment applies; whether the place of birth qualifies under U.S. law (such as through collective naturalization); whether a child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (which the SCOTUS said in Wong Kim Ark is based on the parents having permanent residence and domicil); whether a child born outside the U.S. meets the residency requirements for himself or his parents; or whether other statutory definitions are satisfied, etc. With natural-born citizens, there's no need to satisfy a subject clause or statutory definition: born in the country to citizen parents is simple, authoritative, universal and with no doubts.