The power to define a uniform rule of Naturalization was delegated to Congress in the Constitution, not in the 14th amendment. The first Congress passed the first Uniform Naturalization Act in 1790. The second, replacing the first in its entirety was passed in 1795.
Here is the Text of both acts
Read them yourself Mr. Gato. They didn't define who were citizens. The 1790 Act, had it survived judicial review, which hadn't yet been codified, was repealed in 1795. Naturalization was a messy process, what with indigenous people, slaves, and with every state having different naturalization laws. Eventually, all those Acts did was to confirm that if your parents were citizens, and you were born overseas, and even if your parents were natural born citizens, your were a citizen, but not naturally born.
Most of the states only naturalized white men, women acquiring citizenship through marriage, as with Virginia Minor, naturally by inheritance. It is no accident that the 14th Amendment was filed by the man who tried Lincoln's assassins immediately following the end of the Civil War. John Bingham was one of the most prominent abolitionists, as well as a judge and Major in the Army. The 14th still didn't apply to 'indigenous peoples' - American Indians, because they didn't claim allegiance to our Constitution. (Now we tax them, and they get to build casinos, but I don't know when their naturalization was finally established). We were a nation of laws - once. Monarchies simply claimed subjects, whether they liked it or not, because they could then be conscripted, pay taxes, forced to abide the rules established by the King.
But you are correct about Article 1 Section 8, the naturalization provision. That is why its application to Obama and Rubio results in their becoming naturalized citizens at birth. Some argue that the 14th Amendment shouldn't have been necessary - was superfluous. But that is for another discussion.
I appreciate the correction. That's a good way to learn.
Following your hyperlink to U of Indiana I got an error. Do you think Indiana has scrubbed the references? Indiana was once one of the least likely Universities to adhere to political pressures (the source of some of the best and most even-handed writing about Viet Nam during the volatile 70s). Cornell, with its strong agricultural college, used to lean a bit right of its Ivy connections, but has scrubbed portions of re: Lockwood at the behest of Center for American Progress. I will look more carefully at Indiana when I have time.
Thanks for the correction
To follow your suggestion I did find a useful compendium of most of the nationality acts written by an interesting guy whose interests revolve around Americans working or living overseas, Andrew Sundberg. He is based in Geneva, and this article of his is posted on a Chinese ISP. His group, Overseas American Academy, does not appear to be a fringe operation, and is more concerned with constitutional originalism than Cornell or justia.com. Among their concerns is the double taxation of Americans working abroad. His compendium of Nationality Acts is handy given the growing mistrust of any institution depending upon government largess for survival. Here is the URL. http://www.aca.ch/citizhis.pdf
As with any file from a site you don't know, and most of those we presume to know, copy the pdf file to your hard disk so that it will be scanned for viruses. I scanned and it was clean. I doubt that the Chinese can match Google or Facebook for the surruptitious monitoring software they install without asking.