... but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreign-born child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United States, and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees declared in Afroyim. ...Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
If I'm Cruz, I don;t want to submit to a court ruling on the merits, where my opponent will point to this SCOTUS authority for the proposition that citizenship that depends on a statute is naturalization, regardless of whether a naturalization procedure was undertaken.
.
You choose an erroneous decision, no surprise.
Congress did not confer any citizenship to foreign born citizens, they merely concluded that that was the intent.
IOW, they cleared up what really should not even have been in question.
About what I’ve come to expect from you.