No it doesn't. Statutory definitions are often only for the purpose of the law wherein they are defined. But even if if general, for purposes of Constitutional interpretation, the meaning of a term remains the same as it was when the Constitution was passed and ratified.
One example of the limited nature of statutory definitions is that of "firearm" in the National Firearms Act. Title 26 USC Chapter 53 That definition does not apply to Title 18 section 921>Title 18 USC Chapter 44 Which has it's own definition, which in turn applies only to that chapter.
the terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth" have been Statutorily defined...they have been so defined since the first Naturalization Act of 1790.
No they haven't. The 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act, which did not contain any definition of natural born. Nor has any subsequent statute.
By the terms of Title 8 USC 1101, the definition of "residence" you give, is only applicable to Title 8 Chapter 12. The Constitution overrides any statute. Statutory definitions cannot be used to interpret the Constitution. Where there is conflict, the Constitution overrides any statute.
Now on to the post:
No it doesn't. Statutory definitions are often only for the purpose of the law wherein they are defined.
True statement. The definition applied is in the context of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines the requirements for naturalization, alien status, and who is considered a citizen at birth.
Having said that, please let me repeat that if you would advocate trying to locate a test case to get section 301 of that Act declared unconstitutional, because it goes beyond the Constitutional criteria, I'm with you in that advocacy.
However, until such time as section 301 of the INA is declared unconstitutional, then that is the act to which it applies (Chapter 12 of Title 8 codifies the INA).
No they haven't. The 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act, which did not contain any definition of natural born. Nor has any subsequent statute.
Please read again the images from the 1795 act and 1802 act. Both provide a definition of who was a citizen at the moment of their birth. I, frankly, haven't done an exhaustive search of acts following the 1802 Act. But I don't need to do so either, in order to have made my point.
According to all three of those acts, he would have been a citizen at the moment of his birth, had his father been a citizen, provided his father had resided in the US. The Chin Bow case settled that issue.
I asked you in post #116 what the difference was between "citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen". You indicated in post #119 that there was a difference but didn't tell me what it was. So what is the difference? What authority says what that difference is?