Replies

There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.”
The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.

Again, from the 19th century: “This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”—
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)

There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.” The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.

Liberals make that distinction regarding "person" too. They regard a baby's status as first "non-person" then "person" after birth.

The pro-life/conservative viewpoint regards them consistently the same before or after birth. They are a "Person" before they were born, and they are a "Person" after they are born.

Our position on citizenship is exactly the same. A child is a specific sort of citizen before they are born, and they are the same sort of citizen after they are born. Their citizenship is inherent and natural, and they inherit it from the parents they have.

The Jus Sanguius position and the pro-life position are mutually consistent in this regard.

There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.”

That's right. And the only Constitutional authority CONCERNING birth it that of naturalization

---

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”—

Again, that's correct born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction therof.

Unlike the writings of the Founder's era which typically said - born or naturalized in the United States or some one of them.

So who, exactly was 'subject to the jurisdiction'?

We know it wasn't diplomats or ambassadors, and at least 2 men involved in the 14th Amendment (Howard and Bingham) said it DIDN'T include foreigners or aliens. It didn't include people who were in the States, either. Their allegiance to their respective States made them State citizens -

§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

So who does that leave? The only people in the country that had no recognized citizenship....the freed slaves.

-----

The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.

No, the current viewpoint of the administrative organ is that natural born citizenship as intended by the Law of Land and written by the Founders no longer exists.

We're either naturalized 'at' birth, or naturalized AFTER birth...which is WHY they use the term statutory natural born

And THIS is why Congress knew Obama was not eligible and protected him. Do you really think they would admit that the loss of our natural Rights is because of an assumed jurisdiction?

LOL! Not hardly.