“Did I say they couldn’t be citizens?”
What you said was that “You have to be an Alien first for anything therein [in the law, that is] to apply.” The part of the law the article paraphrased, and which you didn’t appear to argue was paraphrased incorrectly, clarified certain basic qualification for citizenship from birth. Obviously, if you qualify according to the conditions laid out you are a citizen. And if that part of the law, at least, applies to citizens then your assertion that “You have to be an Alien first for anything therein to apply” was false.
That’s all I was saying.
“That child is still a naturalized citizen and not a natural born citizen.
Are you too stupid to understand that?”
Maybe so, as I’ve tried real hard and still can’t understand how someone can be native born without being natural born. I’ve heard the phrase “naturalized from birth,” but that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Maybe so, as I’ve tried real hard and still can’t understand how someone can be native born without being natural born.
I don't think you want to understand myself.
I’ve heard the phrase “naturalized from birth,” but that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Then grasp the concept of natural law versus positive law and you might.
Congress was only give the power of defining a uniform rule of naturalization. Thus any law they make about citizenship, at birth, by group (such as Hawaiian residents), or by the rules they establish for individual naturalization, must be under that power. They were given no power to define Constitutional terms.
The 14th amendment doesn't use the term "Natural Born Citizens" so it can hardly redefine it.