You can’t say citizen=natural born citizen by what you’ve cited. Well, you could, but you’d be wrong of course.
Don’t try to kill the messenger. Its the law of the United States that uses the term “Citizen at birth.”
Now if the law is “wrong” there’s nothing that I can do about that.
Its the law of the United States that uses the term “Citizen at birth.” Now if the law is “wrong” there’s nothing that I can do about that. If there was no dispute over what a citizen is then that statute would say 'Natural Born Citizen' instead of the general term 'Citizen'.
You can't do nothing about that.
VATTEL!
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen);
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel):
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
Des citoyens et naturels
