“But they no longer are the same, but it’s “native born” that has changed. Native born means “born in the country”, and thus a citizen by the 14th amendment. Natural born means what it always has.”
Where do you find legal support for this idea? If anything, I see the opposite - that natural born citizen may well have originally conveyed an idea different from native born, but by the time of Perkins v Elg, had become synonymous.
They are used interchangeably without notice in the decision.
And, for the purposes of this post, I’d be content if folks would agree that well-intentioned folks can honorably disagree on the correct meaning of NBC. At a minimum, I think it is clear that it doesn’t require malicious intent or hatred of country to conclude that the legal definition of NBC does not REQUIRE two citizens as parents.
Exactly so. Because Bloodline citizenship and ius soli citizenship both are granted at birth, everyone has confused the two as the same thing and as having the same legal ramifications, even though that assumption is not legally or historically justified. Both are citizens, but the Constitution never defines which are natural born. Thus both of these types of citizenship can be called native born, but not necessarily natural born. That is why the judges can use the terms interchangeably in their decisions. All NBCs are native born, but not all born citizens are necessarily natural born. The Supreme Court must settle the question.