Both of which have been rendered irrelevant by later legislation. Archie would not need to be naturalized because he's a natural born citizen per the 14th Amendment and legislation in place when he was born.
Archie would not need to be naturalized because he’s a natural born citizen per the 14th Amendment and legislation in place when he was born.
Oh, please show us where in the 14th Amendment that it mentions natural born citizenship. Further, please tell us how “legislation” changes the US Constitution.
Things must be slow over at thefagblow.com.
If citizenship depends on a statute, then it is naturalization, even if there is no naturalization ceremony. Rogers v. Bellei illustrates this.
That said, I would guess that nearly all of the public is of a mind that naturalization only occurs if and when there is a ceremony.
Naturalization only works on, and is only necessary for people who are not or would not be citizens otherwise.
Firstly, the 14th amendment *IS* naturalization (en masse) by legislative act, and secondly, according to what I read earlier, Archie was born in London, so the 14th amendment doesn't even apply.
I think he is only a citizen from the naturalization act of 1952. (or subsequent iteration thereof)
This leaves him in the position of having to "elect" to remain an American citizen, or choose to be a British subject.
And I will reiterate. If you have to "elect" to be a citizen, you are not a natural born citizen. You are a creature of written law, not natural law.