[Redwood71]

““No, but the Supreme court has defined it in a unanimous decision.”

I think the closest they have come is Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), which was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ ...

But this ruling to my thoughts does not take into consideration non-naturalized parents. If you have a case, please, display it. Thanks.

rwood

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Minor v Happersett:

>> according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens<<

-Chief Justice Morrison Waite, unanimous decision.

a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen

The parents are nevertheless required to be US citizens.

[Godebert]

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen