[Cboldt]

Just to add one more example to the collection we are creating. I'm sure there are cases where the honest-to-God natural born citizenship of the person is not recognized by the government. Mistakes happen. We could argue over whether or not that person is a citizen or not, and both sides have an argument. I could say he's a citizen, and the government made a mistake, and my opponent could say the person is not a citizen, period, because the government doesn't find so.

That argument will be resolved the same way the argument about abortion and homosexual marriage being in the 14th amendment is resolved - never!

I'm sure there are cases that go the other way too, citizenship improvidently recognized. IOW, a person is not a citizen, but the government issues papers to the effect that make that person a citizen. Same loggerheads, one side no citizenship, the other side citizenship is what the government recognizes, and that is conclusive, final, and always correct.

[WhiskeyX]

Yes, that is why I was highlighting the differences between having a right versus exercising a right. The lawyers have a number of Latin phrases which break this down into much finer distinctions which would be lost in this kind of discussion.

It must also be emphasized the authority to grant the U.S. citizenship at birth for a foreign born person is a statutory Act for the Naturalization of foreign born persons. Statutes are not natural law. Natural born citizens are citizens because of natural law and not because of statutory law. Statutory law and natural law are the exact opposites of each other. By definition statutory law is not natural law and cannot authorize or unauthorized natural born citizenship, because natural born citizenship exists without the existence and before the existence of a statute. Natural born citizenship is the application of natural law, because the domestic birth of a child with two citizen parents does not permit the possibility of a non-citizen birth.