[Seven_0]

It is incumbent upon you to prove that there is an actual distinction (insofar as American Constitutional jurisprudence is concerned) between a "citizen by birth" and a "natural-born citizen".

Congress is given the authority to define naturalization. There are several possibilities addressed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. They consider the citizenship of the parents and the place of birth including United States Territories. There are two notable exceptions that apply to your statement.

First is children born of citizen parents in United States is the only possible combination that is not included because it was understood that it was not necessary. The second concerns children born of Foreign Diplomats in the United States. Not only are they not natural born citizens, they are not citizens at all. The idea of birthright citizenship is naturalization by a law made by Congress and could be undone by Congress.

[woodpusher]

Congress is given the authority to define naturalization.

"The Congress shall have power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...."

The idea of birthright citizenship is naturalization by a law made by Congress and could be undone by Congress.

Birthright citizenship came to the colonies via English common law. Upon achieving statehood, the new states adopted the English common law on citizenship. Under the Constitution, birthright as stated in English common law continued. With the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship was placed beyond the reach of Congress, and the words used were, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The Congress only has power to pass laws consistent with that.