[philman_36]

It does nothing towards establishing “native born” as a category of U.S. citizenship under the Constitution.
Isn't that because there was no need?
Can't both be native born, that being only born on US soil?
Because if we go by what the U.S. Constitution actually says - it mentions “natural born citizens” and “naturalization”.
I've never said it doesn't, have I?
What is the main difference between the two?

[allmendream]

There certainly WOULD be a need - if the founders intended for there to be FOURTH category of citizenship there most certainly was a need for it to be included - but it was not.

The U.S. Constitution makes mention of only THREE types of U.S. citizen - those who were citizens at the time of adopting the Constitution - those who were natural born - and those that must be naturalized.

The difference between the last two (and currently the only two) between that those who are natural born and those that are naturalized is this......

A natural born citizen is born a U.S. citizen and has no need of a legal process to establish citizenship - a naturalized citizen is not born as a U.S. citizen and has need of a legal process and sworn oaths to establish U.S. citizenship.

The clear meaning of the Constitution is that currently there are two types of U.S. citizen - natural born and naturalized.