The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.
The distinguishing characteristic was parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be “citizen”.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further “natural born citizens”?
Are we to conclude that other children born with parental US citizenship - those who were not “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States”, those born within the United States - are “natural born citizens”?
Or are these other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than “natural born citizens”? Why? Was it necessary that they be “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to be “natural born citizens”?
Who are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
The reasonable conclusion is that those born within the United States with parental US citizenship are “natural born citizens”.
The reasoning is not hard. And the authorities are crystal clear.
The question was what the Founders and Framers and their generation intended by "natural born citizen."
The best legal experts of early America have told us clearly what that means.
Rawle tells us, without mincing any words whatsoever, that if a person is born on US soil to non-citizen parents, that person is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, with all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity:
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
With ALL the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
Tucker and Swift both agree that natural born citizens are those born within a State. No mention at all of parentage.
And yes, in the case of Swift, he speaks for one State only. But what he says is consistent with Rawle and Tucker.
Bayard tells us that it's not necessary for a person to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. Being BORN A CITIZEN is quite enough:
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
Marshall, Story and Kent are all in agreement with Bayard.
In both instances, being born a citizen is enough to make one a natural born citizen.
NOW. If you had a case, you would be able to produce NOT ONE, but SEVERAL of our MAJOR EARLY LEGAL EXPERTS, who would have given the birther "definition" of natural born citizen.
But you can't produce even ONE.
All you and the rest of the birthers can do is produce some quote like Marshall's quoting Vattel on an international law case that doesn't even MENTION the phrase "natural born citizen," which isn't even ABOUT the DEFINITION of citizenship, but is instead about how we treat acknowledged citizens who are currently living in an enemy country - and then claim that THAT bullshit supports your claim.
That's it. It's over. You lost the debate.
And you lost the debate because the FACTS AND THE TRUTH WERE NEVER WITH YOU.
Wrong! The difference is only that a person who does not have birthright Citizenship is NOT eligible.
“The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.