He is either "natural-born" or naturalized. There are no other choices. Since he is not naturalized, he is natural-born.
I have no dog in this fight, but feel it should be clarified by Congress.
...He is either “natural-born” or naturalized. There are no other choices. Since he is not naturalized, he is natural-born....
He DERIVED citizenship because of one or both of his parents. Please cite your information stating one is either naturalized or natural born.
According to the Acts of Congress one may believe he is in fact naturalized:
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538
(see section 3 -and the act is called An Act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,(not citizenship)
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=192
this is not a new issue see below concerning Natural Born Citizen Act introduced in Congress in 2004 and not passed, so there is in fact an issue.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128
http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc
......Support for the position that the term “natural born Citizen” should include children born outside the United States to citizen parents is particularly well articulated in a law review article by Jill A. Pryor entitled The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty. This article argues that “any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.” .......
Can you cite a legal definition for both? I’m just wondering if there is a *little* more to this than many on here are admitting.
It all depends on how “natural born” is defined, imo.