The point of quoting the FAM in my last post was to demonstrate that the U.S. government endorses the concept of statutory citizenship. It makes no guarantee that citizenship granted pursuant to a statute is equivalent to citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In Rogers v. Bellei, SCOTUS stipulates that citizenship granted at birth by statute is a Congressional generosity to which such citizens have no constitutional right. Further, the Court says that if Congress had wanted to do so it could have forced such citizens to go through the more arduous process of naturalization.
So, while you and I agree that Congress has the power to say who requires naturalization and who doesn't. It seems wrong to me that Ted Cruz has no constitutional right to his citizenship (remember SCOTUS said it's up to Congress) but the child of an illegal who is born on U.S. soil does have a constitutional right to his citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The former may be revoked by law; the latter may not.
“It makes no guarantee that citizenship granted pursuant to a statute is equivalent to citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
No it doesn’t. It says nothing of the sort. Title 8 Section 1401 is the law regarding citizenship. Mind showing us where in that law such as thing is said?
Again, you confuse naturalization with natural. Sorry, that case doesn’t hold here.