Replies

I’ll spell out what I mean so it’s clear.

Those born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens at birth by constitutional declaration (14A). Such citizens do not NEED a Congressional statute to affirm or declare their citizenship status. (They happen to have an affirming statute but do not actually need it.) Furthermore, their citizenship cannot be revoked by Congressional statute because the Constitution is supreme and Congress cannot override it.

Everyone else who obtains citizenship at birth does so through a Congressional statute. In fact, they NEED a Congressional statute to give them citizenship because the Constitution (14A) does not explicitly grant citizenship to them. Since their citizenship is derived solely through Congressional statute, Congress may revoke or modify their citizenship status by revising statutory law.

Since their citizenship is derived solely through Congressional statute, Congress may revoke or modify their citizenship status by revising statutory law.

That is where "born" status comes into play. One has to play out any courtcase in one's mind, because "natural born citizen" actually is in the Constitution. What the Constitution doesn't detail is whether that is through place of birth and through blood, or if it is only through place of birth, so I would have to say that any reading of the Constitution has to include both, since it doesn't limit it to just one or the other. All the 14th does is point out thaty place of birth applies to anyone who is born here. (Sadly, giving rise to anchor baby citizenship.)

Since "natural born citizen" clearly includes the word "born", then that would logically extend to all those born of citizens. This is necessary due to the equal treatment understanding of the Constitution, for allowing the children of some citizens to have all the perquisites of citizenship, but denying those to others would seem to be an unequal treatment. For example, discrimination against soldiers, or businessmen, or travelers is the only way to view denying citizenship to their children when they themselves have not renounced their citizenship, and in the case of the first 2 groups, also have been pursuing interests of the nation in their absence from the geography of the USA.

So, if these children are born with my name, and born with my property, and born with my access, and born with my blood, (and even born with my income tax deduction), then it appears the state has already recognized them.

My point is that anyone attempting to revoke their citizenship would lose....probably in Congress itself, but certainly in the Courts.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think it is an illogical opinion.

Everyone else who obtains citizenship at birth does so through a Congressional statute. In fact, they NEED a Congressional statute to give them citizenship because the Constitution (14A) does not explicitly grant citizenship to them. Since their citizenship is derived solely through Congressional statute, Congress may revoke or modify their citizenship status by revising statutory law.

Thank you. Well stated.