[philman_36]

So you believe that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is secondary to a naturalization law governing aliens that Congress created?

[allmendream]

Except this is not “naturalization” it is governing who are citizens at birth.

It is not as if there is a section under the law that is not covered. Every circumstance that results in citizenship at birth is covered. It is not as if there is a blank spot in U.S. law covering citizenship at birth.

Both ways of becoming a U.S. citizen (and the corresponding type) are covered under the law.

Naturalization is covered in one section of the law.

Who is a citizen at birth - and thus natural born - is covered in another section of the law.

Now WHERE - ANYWHERE is there language in U.S. law saying a citizen at birth of any type is considered “naturalized”?

Good luck finding it.

[allmendream]

And the meaning of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is in alignment with the laws governing a uniform rule of naturalization - because our founders didn't suffer under the delusion that a citizen at birth was in need of any sort of naturalization.

So you believe the intent of the Founders and the clear meaning of our Constitution is secondary to the musings of an 18th century Swiss philosopher?