[Cold Heat]

Context: Plaintiff challenged constitutionality of immigration law providing that person who acquires US citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to at least one US parent and who meets certain residency requirements loses US citizenship unless s/he resides in the US for five years between the age of 14 and 28. Lower court held the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision reversed, finding that persons born abroad to US parents do not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and, therefore, are not entitled to 14th Amendment protections. In other words, over a strong dissent, the Supreme Court created a third "type" of non-constitutional citizenship - applicable to children born abroad to US citizen parents.

[Cboldt]

I know the case. I've briefed it here on FR, and presented and argued in excruciating detail what certain passages stand for.

There is no difference, among the 9 justices, that Bellei was naturalized and was a full fledged citizen at birth, and all agree he would be a citizen today if he had 5 years residence in the US before reaching the age of 21.

What you term as a third class of citizen, is what the dissent sees as a full fledged citizen whose citizenship can be stripped by Act of Congress, after the Act grants it. The majority said Bellei was naturalized, but not IN the US, so didn't get 14th amendment protection. The dissent said that the location, or where he was naturalized was immaterial, and Bellei should be, as a matter of law, covered by the 14th amendment.

A citizen covered by the 14th amendment is either born in the US or naturalized.

Not presented for argument, I accept your invitation to part ways. Presented only as a brief restatement of the case. The case that would not and could not exist, but for the fact that Bellei was naturalized.