Replies

“A citizen at birth *IS* a natural-born citizen. They are one and the same.”

I guess I would agree WRT current statutes. But for purposes of discussion, imagine that Congress inserted a clause into the Naturalization Statute to the effect “All individuals who become citizens under the provisions of this statute before the age of 35 will be deemed citizens at birth. As natural-born citizens, they therefore will be eligible to serve as President of the United States.”

If the above became law, then Congress will have defined a certain category of individuals “citizens at birth.” Moreover, they would have clarified their intention to equate citizen at birth with natural-born citizen, so they can be no quibbling about congressional intent. But the mere fact that they have declared these individuals citizens at birth (which is their prerogative to do) and presumable entitled to all the rights of citizenship (which presumably no one can legally deny them) doesn’t mean that what they have done is constitutional. Were Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, to run for president based on this hypothetical statute, you can be sure it would be challenged and I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court would rule that the statute’s claim that such citizens be made eligible for the presidency was unconstitutional.

Thus, as a general matter, Congress has wide berth to statutorily draw a line between citizens at birth and those who must be naturalized. But that line is not infinitely elastic and someone could misconstrue your claim to imply otherwise.