“SCOTUS affirmed it hundreds of times! There is no such thing as a 2nd class citizen.”
In 1964, the Supreme Court recognized that only natural born citizens could be president, and naturalized citizens could not.
This is devolving into insanity.
You can say that again! What is that 1964 case, by the way?
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
"(a) A person who has become a national by naturalization shall lose his nationality by --"SCOTUS held the act to be an unconstitutional stripping of naturalized citizenship."(1) having a continuous residence for three years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, except as provided in section 353 of this title, [Footnote 1] whether such residence commenced before or after the effective date of this Act. . . ." [citing The Immigration and Nationality' Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 269, 8 U.S.C. S:S: 1101, 1484, provides by S: 352] ...
The Solicitor General makes his case along the following lines.
Over a period of many years, this Government has been seriously concerned by special problems engendered when naturalized citizens return for a long period to the countries of their former nationalities. It is upon this premise that the argument derives that Congress, through its power over foreign relations, has the power to deprive such citizens of their citizenship.
Other nations, it is said, frequently attempt to treat such persons as their own citizens, thus embroiling the United States in conflicts when it attempts to afford them protection. It is argued that expatriation is an alternative to withdrawal of diplomatic protection. It is also argued that Congress reasonably can protect against the tendency of three years' residence in a naturalized citizen's former homeland to weaken his or her allegiance to this country. The argument continues that it is not invidious discrimination for Congress to treat such naturalized citizens differently from the manner in which it treats native-born citizens, and that Congress has the right to legislate with respect to the general class without regard to each factual violation.
A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance.
The dissent is a good read.
Here appellant has been away from the country for 10 years, has married a foreign citizen, has continuously lived with him in her native land for eight years, has borne four sons who are German nationals, and admits that she has no intention to return to this country. She wishes to retain her citizenship on a standby basis for her own benefit in the event of trouble. There is no constitutional necessity for Congress to accede to her wish.