That is a non sequitur. It does not follow that Congress having the power to naturalize, can create "natural citizens" using their power of naturalization.
No. No. No. No. No. That is errant nonsense.
That is like saying because water is wet, it defines fire. No. No. No. No. No.
All acts of Congress which create citizens are "naturalization acts."
Denying the specific enumerated power of Congress because it does not fit your agenda does not change the fact that Congress was SPECIFICALLY given that power under the Constitution.
The “rules of naturalization” means:
1) who is a citizen at birth (naturally born)
2) who is not a citizen and must be naturalized
If you don’t like that, then change the constitution.
It does not matter what you think
I would like to know what your position is on the concept of citizenship via the operation of natural law insofar as to whether it implies that every person born has a natural allegiance that makes that person a Natural Born Citizen of a place, someplace, anyplace.
I ask this because I have to wonder, if this conjecture is true, how it is that there can be such a thing as a “stateless person”.
I have a specific example in mind that I may share depending on how this question is answered by the consensus of opinion here.
“...That is errant nonsense...”
It appears that opinions vary. Now *MY* opinion counts about as much as your does. But you know whose opinion counts a lot? The opinions of those who get to decide whether a candidate qualifies to hold the office of president and so far, the prevailing opinion is that Cruz can be President if he can garner the votes. Now I rather doubt the opinions of anyone on Free Republic is going to sway those folks and what are you going to do when Trump picks Cruz as his VP?
Good luck with your candidate!