Absolutely. A child born in the U.S. to two naturalized U.S. citizens is not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen.
Could you point me to a law in the US Code, a Supreme Court decision or a clause in the Constitution that backs up your point of view?
Sure.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)Note that the Court does not claim that the child's parents must be natural born citizens but simply citizens.The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The 14th Amendment defines who shall be citizens.
14th AmendmentI'm aware of the Indiana decision. I disagree with it. I also believe that if it were ever tested, it would not be upheld.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.
This conversation is an example of the civility that should be displayed when two freepers disagree about an issue.
Birthers should take note of and learn from this example.
You have an interesting interpretion of Minor v Happersett.
In the US Supreme Court’s decision in Perkins v Elg from 1939, some have ‘argued’ that the case of Steinkauler indicates that one has to be born to US parents. Nothing in the ruling indicates that this is a requirement. In fact, the Steinkauler case is a good example that US birthright citizenship cannot be taken away by the parents of a minor child. Furthermore, it shows that the term ‘native citizen of the United States’ is sufficient for Steinkauler to eventually run for the presidency.
“The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, HE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. [caps, mine]
And yet, based on Steinkauler, some people still insist that native and natural born are two different concepts. It’s clear that natural born fully encompasses native born.
The US Supreme Court went further in this 1939 decision:
“The status of young Steinkauler and his right to protection from the Government of the United States depends primarily upon his nationality. Nationality is either natural or acquired. The one results from birth the other from the operation of the laws of states.”
The Indiana decison was “tested” by an appeal of the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, who rejected the case.
Seven Obama eligibility lawsuits have been presented for Writ of Certiorari (acceptance) conferences at the US Supreme Court. The Justices have refused to hear any of them. It only takes the concurrence of four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case before the full Court (the rule of four). That means even the four strict constructionist, traditionalist, conservative Justices (Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) have not been persuaded that there is a constitutional issue worth adjudicating.