Replies

The reason I asked whether you and the other guy are both citizens at birth under the statute is as a counter to the claim that they can't be "the same thing". Two things that are different in some respects may nevertheless be treats as "the same" under U.S. law in others. So, the mere fact that you and the guy who can lose his citizenship for leaving the country are "different" doesn't itself preclude the conclusion that you are both "the same" in terms of being a citizen at birth.

It is my contention that the "natural born citizen" requirement for a US president is intended to invoke the most stringent criteria for being a citizen.

Do you disagree?

The question of whether a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen is a different question. I'm just making the point that being "different" in some respects under the law doesn't preclude being treated the same under others.

"Natural citizen" only comes into play in a single aspect of law of which I am aware. For all the rest, any old citizenship is just as good.

that they very clearly are under the statute. That's inarguable. You can argue that isn't the same as being a "natural born citizen", but that's a different argument.

That is in fact the argument I have been making. To reiterate, I argue that statute citizenship is not the same as natural citizenship, and I have just demonstrated to you a very important point at which they diverge.

Rogers vs. Bellei Makes these differences clear.

I also point out the argument that "they are the same" does not accomplish the purpose the founders tell us they intended when they created the "natural born citizen" clause.

It is my contention that the "natural born citizen" requirement for a US president is intended to invoke the most stringent criteria for being a citizen. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. "Most stringent criteria" is ambiguous and completely open ended. Born here to no citizen parent? Born here to one? To both? But that isn't even enough. Because was at least one of your parents born here, or were they both born in a foreign land to which they may have developed some loyalty, and perhaps raised you that way? Or maybe both of your parents must have been born in this country for you to be considered a "natural born citizen"....

So no, I don't believe something as ambiguous and open-ended as "most stringent was intended, and it certainly wasn't actually stated anywhere.

For a wide variety of reason I don't wish to rehash, I also find the entire argument around de Vattel's Law of Nations to be wrong.

Rather than go with "most" stringent, I'll just go with "more" stringent, and focusing on the word "born". Which to me as plain reading breaks down to citizen at birth v. someone who was naturalized later in life. So at least as far as we're talking about those born on U.S. soil, the 14th Amendment controls that.