Of course I could provide over 50 citations that disprove your misunderstanding but you only deserve a little of my time so here is one:
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as “Congress’s think tank”, an official governmental department along with GAO and CBO, had this to say:
“ In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.”
So go ahead and continue your little conspiracy theory in the land of wing nuts. Add words to the Constitution that do not belong there at your own peril however because that makes you no different than the liberal wing nuts out there.
No, there are at four kinds because of the 14th amendment, and the Minor court lists a fifth which most Foggers conveniently forget.
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.The 14th Amendment to the Constitution clarifies for any of us who would want to think otherwise that being born within the jurisdiction of the United States confers natural-born rather than naturalized citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, expressly affirms this understanding of the 14th Amendment.
- - -
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption.
The Wong Kim Ark court tells us otherwise very specifically. Read and learn:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution, so when the court says the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens, it is very specifically saying the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The dissent in Ark makes it very clear that the 6-2 majority decision afforded to Wong the right to run for President even though both of his parents were not U.S. citizens. He inherited that right because he was born in San Francisco.
The dissent was responding to a question directly from the appeal that the majority did not even address. NOTHING in the majority decision affords Ark the right to run for president. Plus, the dissent AGREED with the majority's definition of 14th amendment birth citizenship, just not for Ark because of a contrary treaty:
the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens ...
Now why would the dissent say this if he thought such citizenship made a person a natural-born citizen???
The statement by the CRS is the opinion of its author. His claim is not merited out by review of the Supreme Court cases that form the nation's highest legal opinion. He's ignoring Luria v. United States which cites Minor which said: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... THESE are the natural-born citizens.