The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rogers v. Bellei was that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on the appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.
Exactly. Bellei was a statutory citizen at birth under the INA and not a constitutional citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment.
Congress differentiated between the two types of citzenship at birth by imposing retention requirements upon the statutory citizen. The Court recognized Congress’ power to do so and also stipulated that Congress has no such power over constitutional citizens born under the 14th Amendment.
The Court further differentiated between the two types of citizenship at birth by stipulating that statutory citizens at birth have no constitutional right to their citizenship. It is granted as a Congressional generosity. Whereas citizens born under the 14th Amendment have a constitutional guarantee to their citizenship that cannot be revoked by a mere act of Congress.
So both Congress and the Courts have recognized a difference between statutory citizens at birth and constitutional citizens born under the 14th Amendment.