Replies

Don’t take my word for it. Take the Supreme Court’s rulings.
Only two types of citizen are recognized.

Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“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.

“This section [the citizenship clause] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

Minor v. Happersett (1874):
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Now if you can find a ruling that there is a third or fourth or fifth category of citizenship other than the two specified in the 14th Amendment, please post it.

What you seem to be missing, is that 'naturalization' is not a process you go through that ends in a test, and raising your right hand. A 'Naturalized' Citizen is one who requires some positive law for their Citizenship. Reread the SCOTUS opinions in that context, and you will see that, that is consistent with what the court says. What this means, is that someone can be a 'naturalized' Citizen, and the 'naturalization' occurs at birth automatically. So they are both a 'Citizen at birth', and a 'naturalized Citizen'.

A perfect example of this is Ted Cruz. He is both a US citizen at birth, and a naturalized US citizen.

A way to look at this, that might make it easier to see, is to look at it in a negative context. Would the repeal of any law, prior to Cruz's birth, have resulted in Cruz not being a US citizen? The simple answer is yes. This applies to ALL man made laws, even the 14th Amendment.

One additional thing, 'Citizen at birth' does not equate to 'Citizen by birth'. Many people, such as Cruz (and 14th Amendment anchor babies), are 'Citizens AT birth', but the term 'Citizen BY birth' means something completely different, and only 'natural born Citizens' are Citizens BY the fact of their birth alone. So, reread the opinions again, with that understanding, that 'BY birth' does equate to 'natural born Citizen', and 'AT birth' does not.

There is a 14th Amemdment citizen who is born here and subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. These are todays' "native" born citizens.

You'll notice, the 14th says nothing at all about "natural born" citizens.

In fact, the father of the 14th amendment, and all those in congress at the time, knew that a "natural born" citizen was one born in the soverign territory to two citizen parents. The authors of the 14th clearly knew there was a difference between a "natural born" citizen and a "native" citizen and their new amendment (the 14th) had zero to do with defining who was a "natural born Citizen."

Somehow in today's world, people believe they know better than our forefathers and what they themselves knew when it comes to these issues.

There was also another type of citizen, specifically mentioned in the Constitution "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."