“Congress only has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. They cannot define who is a “natural born” citizen.”
Not So. Congress has set laws on who becomes citizen at birth. They have done so since a law back in 1795 on the matter.
See this description of citizenship at birth defined by Congressional statutes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law
“In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:
1. Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth
2. At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth.
INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, “and one of whom has had a residence.” The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states “no amount of time specified.”
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized.
[edit] Through birth abroad to one United States citizen
For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[4]
1. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;
2. The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child’s birth;
3. A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of his or her citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.
Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual’s birth.
Last point. Your claim that there are 3 circumstances of birth citizenship contradicts Supreme Court rulings and statements ...
SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court
Relevent quote snippets:
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. “
Kim Ark references this earlier ruling:
“In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects. “
... and ...
“It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.””
The meaning is clear. “natural-born” is synonymous to aquiring citizenship at birth. Natural-born citizens are simply those who are citizens at time of birth. There is no “super-duper” citizen class above and beyond a citizen from time of birth. Asserting that contradicts the text and meaning of the 14th and additional statutes and precedents.
That's a bunch tripe you post. You're simply wrong. Wong Kim Ark had foreign parents who never gave up their Empire of China subject status and never became United States citizen. His parents were still in allegiance to China. The facts of the case and the holdings never attempted to call Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen. You have no case that supports your viewpoint.
They certainly have. But, those persons must be considered "naturalized at birth", because Congress has no delegated power to make anyone a citizen, except through a "uniform rule of Naturalization.
Your "Wong Kim Ark" decision contains the following language:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle
So they do make a distinction between a natural born child of a citizen, and the child of an alien, born in the country. Add in naturalized citizens, and you have three classes of citizens. BTW, that is the only place in the entire decision, where the words "natural born" are used. The case is about citizenship, and retention thereof, not natural born citizenship. There essentially have been no cases involving "natural born" verses "native born but not "natural born"
This is not surprising, because the only distinction between the two , is eligibility to the Office of President. Thus, Chester Arthur had to hide the fact that his father was not a citizen, *at the time Chester was born*. That made him native born, but not natural born.