Going by the U.S. Constitution there has only ever been three types of U.S. citizen.
Those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Those who are naturalized as U.S. citizens.
Those who are natural born citizens.
Yup. Although never definitively stated as such, that’s the way past Supreme Court decisions point.
Since group A is long dead, there are presently only two categories of US citizens.
Those who are naturalized as U.S. citizens.
Those who are natural born citizens.
And here you come along to throw more confusion into the discussion. So riddle me this. In 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified, were the Slaves naturalized or natural born? How about the Indians? What were they?
No, also under the Constitution the 14th amendment makes citizens out of persons who are born or naturalized here, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The SCOTUS interpreted this to mean the children born in the country or naturalized of resident aliens who have permanent domicil in the U.S. There would be no reason to have such a Constitutional amendment if these persons were already considered natural-born citizens. The SCOTUS said they are not NBC because the court clearly said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Instead, that distinction falls exclusively to those children born in the country to citizen parents. See U.S. v Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett.
How does your tier/class of definitions explain/reconcile that the explicit and deliberate wording of the Constitution distinguishes ‘citizen’ for congresspersons and ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA?
There are only two classes of “citizens” under the Constitution, a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides: “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.” With “citizen of the United States” having long expired as a permissible national character for presidential eligibility, the only focus when determining presidential eligibility is “natural born Citizen,” not “citizen of the United States.”
The Constitution at Article V calls for any changes to the Constitution to be made by constitutional amendment which requires a prescribed procedure to accomplish. We do not amend the Constitution and the “natural born Citizen” clause by confirming or amending through Congressional Acts the class of persons who may become “citizens of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Nor did Congress do so through the Fourteenth Amendment which only defines refers to and defines a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” Again, who our nation decides to make a “citizen of the United States,” either at birth or after birth, never has nor does it amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which “[a]t common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” were “all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor).
The Obots have changed their position. Before they said that there were only two classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizens” and the “naturalized citizens.” They conveniently left out the “citizens of the United States.” Now they say that there were only ever three types of U.S. citizen:
1. Those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
2. Those who are naturalized as U.S. citizens.
3. Those who are natural born citizens.
It just keeps getting better and better.
As I said, the Obots just keep getting better and better. They add that since “those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” are all long dead, there are presently only two categories of US citizens, the “natural born citizens” and the “naturalized citizens.” This is really funny. First, I guess the early “citizens of the United States” who are long dead caused the class of citizens called “citizens of the United States” to no longer exist, but the early “natural born Citizens” who are also long dead did not cause the class of citizens called “natural born Citizens” to also no longer exist. Second, I guess that since the early “citizens of the United States” are long dead, so did all those “citizens of the United States” that followed them to the present and into the future. “Citizens of the United States” just disappeared from our nation. I wonder where they all got to?
It seems incongruous to say that the singular word ‘citizen’ applies only to such persons at the time the Constitution was adopted while the same singular word ‘citizen’ appears in what apparently is the present day Constitution as to eligibility for congresspersons. I grant that words can be meant to be anything desired but events of history bound by words is more than just someones desire/intentions.