[RideForever]

In her post #102 to herself (... well, like that isn't crazy) stated “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” clearly shows they are different because they are described differently.

One is merely a citizen, the other a Natural Born Citizen. That is due to the effect of the 'sovereignty - citizenship' quality of the the word 'jurisdiction' in 'subject to the jurisdiction ...' found in the 14th Amendment you obsessively deny.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Here is a link to my BFF’s website, The Birther Think Tank. She wrote some pretty good articles on the two-citizen parent birther silliness and insanity:

This particular link lays it all out in Plain English. No one has any excuse to remain in ignorance about the topic:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/a-place-to-get-the-really-right-answers-about-natural-born-citizenship/

(And, to respond to you, the 14th Amendment simply placed long-existing common law on natural-born citizenship into the constitution. Common law, or judge-made law, became Constitutional law, which is above statutory law even. So, a citizen under operation of the 14th Amendment is exactly the same as a natural-born citizen under common law. There is no difference, and when Birthers tried to make the silly argument that there was, the Ankeny courts and other courts simply sent them packing!)

[woodpusher]

One is merely a citizen, the other a Natural Born Citizen.

Is this following the old birther argument that a Natural Born Citizen was one not born by Caesarean Section?