Replies

Look, I know you likely don’t want to answer the question and are probably just pretending to be obtuse, but let me ask you one more time.

Is a child born today in Guam of parents who are residents and citizens of Guam (and also American citizens—probably from their births) an American citizen at the birth of that child in Guam? And, 2nd, is that child born in Guam a “natural born citizen” for purposes of determining eligibility for the American presidency?

These questions are NOT complicated and are meant for clarity. Don’t fear answering them please -— YOU were the person who brought up the Virgin Islands & Guam and American citizenship.

-- Is a child born today in Guam of parents who are residents and citizens of Guam (and also American citizens--probably from their births) an American citizen at the birth of that child in Guam? And, 2nd, is that child born in Guam a "natural born citizen" for purposes of determining eligibility for the American presidency? --

I thought I answered that already. The answer I gave before was "no" and the answer I give now is "no."

Those people obtain citizenship via a naturalization statute. If it wasn't for the statute, they wouldn't be a citizen. Their citizenship depends on a statute. That is the legal definition of "naturalized."

SCOTUS cases are so clear on this definition, that to question it is to be a kook. There are hundreds of cases. None of them deviate from this formula. It is settled law, until SCOTUS decides to settle it some other way. It hasn't changed in 200 years.

See Rogers v. Belle of 1971 for application of the predecessor statute that makes Cruz a citizen. Belle was naturalized. Cruz was naturalized. Neither on of them went through a naturalization process, they got naturalized by operation a law, automatically, just like the Hawaiians and people in Guam.

Anyway, all of this contradicts your contention that, "The ONLY damn thing 'natural born citizen' means is that the person is an American citizen immediately upon their birth."

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and you are certainly free to adhere to the formula you stated so succinctly. You and I disagree. I have evidence to support my argument, and you have none, other than the word of Cruz, Katyal, Clement, Somin, and a host of others who are not citing the statutes, and are not citing the relevant SCOTUS precedents.

-- Look, I know you likely don't want to answer the question and are probably just pretending to be obtuse .. --

Probably my fault if it comes off that way. I am trying to be as clear as I know how. I am really and sincerely engaged in good faith argument. At this moment, you and I have opposite positions on the operation of law that attaches the word "naturalized" to a citizen. I don't want communication breakdown, but sometimes that happens.