[DiogenesLamp]

Your example of the Ark cite specifically describes people born OUTSIDE of the United States.

It does describe that, but the portion you need to direct your attention at is the fact that it says congress declares certain classes of people as citizens, by conferring citizenship on them at birth.

You need to acknowledge that having citizenship conferred upon you "at birth" (such as is done with foreign born citizens) is *STILL* naturalization.

People mistakenly think that just because you have citizenship conferred upon you at birth, this makes you a natural born citizen. No, you are still naturalized, but that naturalization is bestowed at your birth.

[Fido969]

That makes no sense at all. There is nothing in the law since the 14th amendment that distinguishes the difference between a “Natural born citizen” and an individual born a citizen. That is completely made up, and the arguments for it are desperate.

Look at this thread. The proponents of this have variously claimed that the original constitution is superior to an amendment to the consitituion. They've cited English common law. They've put forth cases that deal with foreign diplomats as proof that other individual born here would not be a citizen. They've claimed "anchor babies" aren't citizens.

Finally, when cornered on the matter, they say "The law is wrong".

It's not healthy. It leads to a detachment from reality.