Those granted citizenship at birth under the Constitution are natural-born citizens. Those granted citizenship at birth by federal statute are statutory citizens. Both are citizens and not naturalized. (Of course one could argue that a federal statute granting citizenship is inherently an act of naturalization, but I digress.) As stated in the Foreign Affairs manual, statutory citizens may or may not be natural-born citizens under the Constitution and therefore eligible to the presidency. There is no judicial ruling on the matter.
Technically, a "statutory" citizen is a "naturalized" citizen since Congress (who created the statute) only has the power of naturalization via the Constitution.
7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes (a pdf)(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010) a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of ―jus sanguinis‖ under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).
Of course, those statute(s) (naturalization laws) can change with any Congress in session.
Article 2 to the constitution says natural-born citizen, NOT
(a)Born a Citizen
(b)Native Citizen
(c)Born Citizen
(d)Natural born subject
The constitution cannot be read by adding words or ignoring or deleting words as redundant.
Natural means passed on by blood by the parents plural.
That is essentially Vattel’s meaning in the Law of Nations, a book praised as an authority on Citizenship by the Founding Fathers.
Born means born in the country.
And by the way, I don't believe Obama was born in the US. If he was, a valid Birth Certificate and Hawaii SSN would be EASY.
Its quite possible his Father was FMD, but that was not easily provable in the early 60’s, since DNA testing wasn't invented till 1985.
Hence Obama’s citizenship problems and need to hide the use of an Indonesian passport in 1981.
If you have a question about it, refer to our own government’s explanation at:
The explanations at the above site have changed over the past 4-years. In March of 2009 they had three divisions: native born (jus solis); derived (jus sanquinis); and naturalized. You are correct when you state that derived citizenship is a form of naturalization, but due to the definition of ‘Natural born Citizen’ supplied by the Minor Court in 1875, I keep it simple to dampen confusion.
Confusion on this issue is why this Regime keeps rearranging the USCIS descriptions of citizenship, as it is to their advantage to cultivate chaos.
Let’s get one thing straight right from the beginning - Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of citizenship. It is only an eligibility requirement to serve as President of the U.S., and referred to in the past by SCOTUS as a ‘class of citizens’ born in the U.S. of citizen parents. There is no question that a baby born here, in this nation, to parents who are both citizens is also a citizen.
Neither Sen.John McCain nor BHO2 is eligible to be President. The Supreme Court does not have the power to remove a President from office; only Congress has that power.
So, we have a situation in which the very wealthy and
internationally prominent want to control the U.S., and it is too difficult to achieve that goal with a NBC.
I am going to quote the first two paragraphs from a 26-page report by Sarah P. Herlihy, originally published by Kent Law Review in 2006, which details the belief and attitude Globalists have towards our eligibility requirement for President:
[The American Justice Foundation - This article was written in 2005 by an attorney affiliated with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis (that has ties to Mr. Obama) promoting the idea of doing away with the “natural born citizen” requirement for serving as president.]
Chicago-Kent Law Review
2006
81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275
STUDENT NOTE: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
NAME: Sarah P. Herlihy*
SUMMARY:
… The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision. … Additionally, considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a “foreigner” coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland. … Even though this concern is not a legitimate reason to vote against abolishing the natural born citizen clause because many natural born Americans are Muslims, many Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the possibility that a naturalized citizen would be more likely to be a Muslim, Hindu, or some other religion besides Christian. … Accordingly, Americans may rely on their belief that globalization is effectively eating away at “America” by lessening the strength of symbols such as the presidency to justify their decision to leave the natural born citizen requirement in place. …
TEXT:
[*275]
Introduction
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly unAmerican,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[snip]
The above paper is no longer available online. But I think the brief introduction gives a flavor of the superior arrogance of these people and their drive to enfold the U.S.A. into a Global One World government.