Don't apologize for that, or then I'll have to apologize for this one, and this'll take forever.
Since the uniform rule of naturalization is in the federal ballpark, would it be fair to say it would be defined as a citizen created by an action of the federal government?
I'm not sure I'd use the word "defined." There may be few cases around the edges of citizens that are "automatically" naturalized somehow, and I think most consider that the Fourteenth Amendment declared some citizens to be natural born citizens. But generally speaking, yes, a naturalized citizen is one made so through some government-established process.
And since the natural-born definition is the one in contention, what would you define it as, and why?
A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen from birth--it means the same thing as "born citizen" or "born a citizen." I define it that way because everything I've read on the subject makes the most sense that way.
LOL! Fair enough. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you since I was responding to other posters.
-----
But generally speaking, yes, a naturalized citizen is one made so through some government-established process.
Agreed. I would like a bit of clarification on a part of it, though.
and I think most consider that the Fourteenth Amendment declared some citizens to be natural born citizens.
So does the 14th, in your opinion, create NBC's?
------
A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen from birth--it means the same thing as "born citizen" or "born a citizen." I define it that way because everything I've read on the subject makes the most sense that way.
Okay, a natural-born is someone who is a citizen at birth.
Do you believe their are any other criteria [such as parentage] that must be met, or is simply being born in the country sufficient?
If this is true, how did Bellei lose his citizenship?