[Fantasywriter]

Amendment XIV doesn’t redefine anything in Article II.

‘This is because “Citizen of the United States” is mentioned in both, but “Natural Born Citizen” is only mentioned in one. All Amendment XIV did was redefine the citizenship of citizens born before 1787, to which almost all of these people were deceased at the time the Amendment was ratified. So, we can see even the “Citizen of the United States” in Article II was unchanged since no child born before 1787 was natural born. All citizens born before 1787 were naturalized.’

Thanks to devattel for the quote.

[Munz]

Makes sense.

A lot of people misunderstand the concept of naturalization.
But the true test is what had been written in the federalist papers. They discussed the ability of nationality to be conferred from father to son.

You have to read it thoroughly but clearly, it is explained, step by step, that only a child born of parents of American citizens can be natural born. It is done in a backward way discussing British nationality. Which confuses people.

[devattel]

Fantasywriter said:

Thanks to devattel for the quote.

You are quite welcome.

The Natural Born Citizenship clause was intentionally left off of the 14th Amendment. The reason is quite clear. Congress could not have made emancipated blacks natural born citizens. Blacks were not considered citizens of the United States until 1866. Black parents of emancipated citizens were naturalized along with their children on the date of ratification, provided they were still alive at the time.

Any black born after 1866 was a natural born citizen well into the 20th century as just about every black was a child of black citizens.