“Bull. The first Congress was very clear that someone who was a citizen by means of birth was a natural-born citizen. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1790. That should put to rest any question of what “Natural-born†meant to our founding fathers.”
Bull yourself!
The SCOTUS has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
>> The SCOTUS has never applied the term “natural born citizen†to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof <<
It never needed to. The only law where the issue is relevant is presidential elections. And there have been several presidential candidates born overseas, whose eligibility has never faced legal challenge.
Neither Happerset nor Ark limited “natural-born” citizens to those born in the United States, nor suggested anyone born a citizen needed naturalization. Nor has any legislation or court case ever referred to anyone who was a citizen at birth as having been “naturalized.”
The Venus doesn’t refer to NBC. If it meant “natives” as a substitute for “natural-born citizen”, by it’s definition, neither George Romney nor John McCain would have been eligible.