Now, the only cogent definition of which This Guy is aware that makes sense based on all available valid inputs to this analysis is: Born in the united States (and in an actual State, mind you, not a territory) to parents who, at the time of the birth in question, were full-fledged U.S. citizens (whether U.S NBCs themselves, or U.S. citizens via naturalization, either way, it does not matter).Your mileage may vary.
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:
That is the first naturalization act, 1 Stat. 102 (March 26, 1790). As one of the first Acts of the Constitutional congress, it seemed to hold a very different opinion.
As it stands it will take a constitutional amendment to shake birthright citizenship from all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Bear in mind that a country cannot deport somebody unless another country is willing to accept them. I would support changing 14A to children of persons lawfully present in the country. For aliens, we may define lawfully present to mean only those who have entered through regular authorized means and have been given a valid entry visa, or those given a green card - resident visa. An Amendment can say anything we choose to adopt.
I doubt anything regarding domestic births can be done without an amendment. 14A was adopted when immigration was a priority need. We were in the process of throwing Indians off their land and needed to repopulate the areas to keep them off. Times have changed, 14A has not. It says what it says, which is what it was intended to say.
At an international airport, between the debarcation area and the immigration area is a no man's land. Not until one passes through immigration control has one entered the country. They are there, but legally they are not. Like Edward Snowden for a while when his passport was cancelled while in the airport in Moscow. He couldn't enter Russia and he couldn't leave either. That could be the status of illegal aliens. For legal purposes they are not here.
Without lawful entry there should be no lawful pathway to citizenship, which means no entry visa, no work permit, no benefits, and timely deportation. There is no reason to treat illegal aliens better than veterans. The Dreamers is a fiction. The bill for the Dream Act was put up numerous times and always failed. There is no Dream Act; just a failed bill. There should be no mass amnesty to reward those who broke the law entering.
For people born outside the territory of the United States, their status is determined by whatever Federal statute is in effect at the time of birth. Congress can change that to whatever they want, whenever they want.
For natural born citizen it might be easiest to just adopt an amendment defining NBC in whatever manner is desired.
I suppose making failure to enforce the current immigration law could be made a crime carrying a 20 year minimum sentence at a suupermax with no chance of parole. If it were prosecuted.
sujets naturels
natural born citizen is a quite creative translation, or not a translation at all.
sujet is subject in a monarchy, as distinguished from subject of discussion, et al. sujets is plural.
naturels in context is natives.
It was impossible for the original to have contemplated American citizenship as France had not had its revolution and there were no citizen sovereigns to contemplate.
It is the monarchical term for the nearest equivalent of a term unknown to monarchy. The term citizen applied to subjects of a monarch does not aptly describe citizen sovereigns either. The American system of sovereign citizens was something new that did not grow out of French law, or French anything.
The American legal system is so grafted from the English system that English common law before colonial independence is American common law. The entirety of Vattel is meaningless to American domestic citizenship law. It does not matter if it is in French or English translation, International Law does not bind the United States, or any other nation, when it comes to domestic citizenship law. Each country decides for itself and the Hague has nothing to say about it.
A body of law regulating the relations between two or more nation states is uncitable as the law regulating domestic citizenship determinations of any single state.
...considered as...
Of what import, or use, or need, are such words?
Think about it.
Had Congress never included those words, wouldn’t we have been the better for it? Wouldn’t the statute have been clearer?
But no. The words were included. Why?
Because only in Bizarro World are such individuals ever ACTUALLY natural born Citizens. The purpose of the statute, enacted, This Guy might add, only under Congress’ Constitutional Power of Naturalization, was to naturalize such individuals as fall within the new statute’s ambit.
After which they would be recognized as naturalized citizens.
Also, why do you think Congress amended the statute five years later, substantially solely to delete the reference to “natural born”?
Because the language was both unnecessary, and misleading. Hey—it misled woodpusher.