Then I ask you why did they 1898 Supreme Court state that Wong was a 'native born citizen' and not use the term 'natural born citizen' as it is written in the U.S. Constitution.
What's the difference between the two? And if you say they are one in the same cite your source - anyone?
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=169&page=649
What's the difference between the two? And if you say they are one in the same cite your source - anyone?
I'll answer my own question since no one took the bait. ;-)
The answer is under all of your noses. In Article two, section 1., of the U.S. Constitution it mentions two types of citizens. Verbatim, ..."a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States"....
That's two distinct U.S. citizenships. Native born citizens are citizens of the United States but they are not natural born citizens as stated in the U.S. Constitution.
The third is a foreign citizen or national that becomes a U.S. citizen through the naturalization process.
In the words of the US Supreme Court:
The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that '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,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [169 U.S. 649, 703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
According to this decision, there could be some question whether a child born overseas, with one or both parents being American citizens, is a natural-born citizen in the meaning of the Constitution. The wording of this decision, in fact, implies that such a child would not be.
However, this decision is from 1898, and later laws and decisions prior to Obama's birth would be relevant.
The decision is quite clear that there are only two types of citizens, those who acquired it at birth (natural-born or native-born, the terms are used interchangeably, with the implication being that natural-born is an older and somewhat archaic term by 1898) and those who acquired citizenship by naturalization.
I was intrigued by the fact that children born overseas to American parents are considered naturalized by act of Congress, and therefore not native-born or natural-born.
The upshot of all this is that if Obama was born in Honolulu, he's a natural-born citizen fully elgible to be president. If he was born outside the US, legitimate questions arise.
The decision makes it very plain that acts of any other sovereign power (Indonesia, Kenya, UK) are utterly irrelevant to a person's standing as a US citizen.
The question before the court in that case was whether Wong was a citizen of the US or not. The case had nothing to do with whether or not he qualified to serve as President.
You cannot rely on that case for any questions dealing with the definition of natural-born citizen, as that is not an issue dealt with by the court.