Except the court in Minor specifically says that it does not.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
If only you had been there to explain this to him, Chief Justice Waite wouldn't have made this mistake.
No, the 14th is not about naturalization. Naturalization is what happens when a non-citizen becomes a citizen under the laws of Congress. Congress passes laws concerning naturalization, per the Constitution.
If you don’t go thru a naturalization ceremony, then you are born a citizen - in 17th & 18th century terminology, a “natural born citizen” or natural born subject.
As the WKA decision clearly says, the 14th Amendment wording merely restates the the NBC clause in other words - “...to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words...the two classes of cases...both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
Where did the Obots ever get the ridiculous notion that the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” miraculously changes based upon what Congress through a statute or even the Fourteenth Amendment may later decide is a “citizen of the United States” at birth or after birth?
The flaw with the logic presented here is simple.
Citizen AT birth is only half of a ‘natural born Citizen’. It is possible to be a ‘born citizen’. But still not be a ‘natural citizen’.
Example - the citizens of Puerto Rico. They are born citizens - just like 14th Amendmentors. But they are NATURALIZED. And they are collectively NATURALIZED at birth by law.
If any positive (man-made) law - including the 14th is required for your citizenship - you are not a ‘natural citizen’. Natural law is above positive man-made law. That includes the Constitution and its amendments.
The law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1402
So, it is very, very, very clear that being a citizen at birth is NOT the same as being a natural born citizen. Not by a long shot. This is a path of logic that is invalid either in design or ignorance.
As for being born in country as a foundation for qualifying for ‘natural citizenship’. If this were the case then explain the original immigration act. It declared those born abroad (i.e. outside the boundary of the US borders) to two American parents (note - plural) were to BE CONSIDERED AS (not that they actually were) ‘natural born Citizens’ (with a capital C and no hyphen - meaning they knew exacting what they where doing and why they were doing it). This clause was dropped in the next edition of the act. But to this day it shows that jus sanguinis was stronger that jus soli in consideration of being considered a natural born Citizen.
How do you know you are a natural born Citizen? There is no law you can find that that ‘gives’ you citizenship. You do not need it. Your citizenship is natural.
Minor is law - today. It holds - today. It has been referenced time and time over. The reason is that the Minor case had to show that the 14th did not change Article II Section 1. And what the Minor case calls into doubt is that the 14th affords citizenship to children of non-citizen parents. What is not in doubt is that natives or natural-born citizens are children of parents born in the country.
Except the court in Minor specifically says that it does not.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
If only you had been there to explain this to him, Chief Justice Waite wouldn't have made this mistake.