If having one’s case appear in a statute is “citizen by operation of statute”, then all of us are such, even those born in the USA to 2 citizen parents. ALL appear in the law.
So, the advantage of those born in the USA is really the 14th amendment that specifically says that anyone born in the USA is a citizen. (Even it doesn’t use the term ‘natural born citizen’.)
“Natural born citizen” is no place defined in US law with the only exception being the Naturalization Law of 1790.
Exactly. 14A citizens have an advantage over statutory citizens. That’s the whole point.
SCOTUS said that advantage was legal in Rogers v. Bellei.
The case law makes a distinction between those who obtain citizenship without a need to resort to statute (similar to most of us being in the militia by dint of meeting the age and ability criteria), and those whose citizenship depends on a statute. I was referring to the class of people whose citizenship depends on the operation of a statute. If you are born in the US to two citizen parents, then your citizenship does not depend on a statute, although it may be enumerated in a statute.
Unless your position is that citizenship (not via naturalization) ALWAYS depends on an act of Congress, then the distinction I just delineated is relevant; and hopefully clears up any misunderstanding you had about what I meant.
-- "Natural born citizen" is no place defined in US law with the only exception being the Naturalization Law of 1790. --
Also the 1795 version.