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.
His claim? Do you know what the CRS is? It is not a person but the research group that our congress depends upon for its interpretation of the law!
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/history.html
If they get it wrong then this country is REALLY screwed!
You say, “there are at four kinds (of citizens) because of the 14th amendment.”
I only know of two, natural born and naturalized. Enlighten me, what are the other two and where can they be found and do they require citizen parents? See, this is the question I’ve been asking you throughout this thread. So please deliver the answer without any misdirection.
Mr Bingham wrote in 1862:
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic are citizens by birth — natural-born citizens.” (Congressional Globe, 37th, 2nd Session (1862), page 1639, leftmost column)
Furthermore you mention Luria as if it helps your argument.
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913): “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”