[Moseley]

And what does this mean in Rogers v. Bellei:

““that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law EXCEPT BY STATUTE. . . .””

So, in 1790 those who wrote the Constitution passed a statute, and Congress has been enacting different variations ever since.

[Cboldt]

What that means is stated by the court elsewhere in the opinion and order. Those not born on the soil become citizens, if at all, only by operation of statute, and citizens whose citizenship depends on a statute are naturalized.

All your questions are answered in the four corners of the case. If you bothered to read it for honest comprehension, which you are either unnable or unwilling to do.

[patlin]

Cruz relies on the 1790 Act of Congress in regards to his citizenship status. That Naturalization Act of Congress was repealed and replaced with a new one that removed the term “natural born” because Congress was only given authority to make as citizens, those born as aliens, a.k.a. naturalization, hence that Act of Congress was rightly called, the Naturalization Act of 1790. If your citizenship is conferred upon you by an act of Congress, you are a naturalized citizen, whether that act of Congress takes place at birth or at a later date.