I guess you need to reed the Supreme Court decision in Fleming v. Nestor. A small excerpt is provided.

"2. A PERSON COVERED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NOT SUCH A RIGHT IN OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED" INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PP. 608-611.

(A) THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARE BASED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS. PP. 608-610.

(B) TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS AND WHICH CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. PP. 610-611."

Your arguments ignore the role of Jus Sanguinis in obtaining citizenship w/o naturalization. But this form of naturalization is by statute since Congress passed these laws and the government wrote the regulations, not by nature.

You see the constitution did not discuss citizenship. But it did divide citizens into two groups - citizens and Natural Born Citizens. Citizen in the Constitution refers to both Naturalized and Natural Born and both are equal in the eyes of the Constitution. You contend that the 14th Amendment created 'Natural Born Citizens' thus defining, redefining or clarifying the founders term "Natural Born Citizen" to the concept of Jus Soli only. And called them "Citizens". By this argument we can now replace 'Natural Born Citizen' in the Constitution with "Citizen" thus changing the meaning of "citizen" in sections 2 and 3 of the original document. Nice argument coming from an originalist(?). Not much revision there.

Did they modify that law; did they eliminate that law w/i 10 years. If you need a law to determine you are a Natural Born Citizen then you are not a Natural Born Citizen. You are a statutory natural born citizen. The law did not make then 'Natural Born Citizens' it stated these children "shall be considered as natural born Citizens". Sorry but the "considered as" and "are" are not the same term legally. One last point on this particular subject. from US department of State FAM.

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

You see, Congress cannot pass a law that changes the Constitution, only way to change it is through an Amendment. Which is why the Immigration law of 1790 the provision for these children was not needed and therefore changed and finally removed in later laws.
Hmmm.

And they also understood Jus Sanguinis.

The decision was that Ark was a Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. All coming before and after this paragraph are to support that decision.

Again the 14th Amendment only creates Citizens not Natural Born Citizens. The 14th Amendment did not define or redefine natural born citizen. Nowhere in the Amendment is there a discussion of Natural Born Citizenship.

continuation from above:

Justice Gray misrepresented earlier Supreme Court rulings:

In his reasoning, Justice Gray misrepresented four prior Supreme Court rulings. None of these four rulings supported the jus soli principle that Justice Gray was contending:

In Inglis v. Trustees Of Sailor's of Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), the Plaintiff was born in New York during the Revolutionary War. His father was a British subject who never became an American citizen. The Plaintiff's exact birthdate was unknown. During the Revolutionary War, control of New York alternated between American and British forces. The Court ruled that, even if New York was under American control at the time of the Plaintiff's birth, the Plaintiff would still be a British subject by birth, and not an American citizen, because the plaintiff's nationality at birth would have "followed that of his father".

In Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), the court ruled that Ann Scott was a citizen of South Carolina, by virtue of the fact that her father was a citizen of South Carolina. According to the Court, "children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character, as a citizen of that country".

Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 102, 109 (1832) was strictly a matter of New York State law. It had nothing to do with federal citizenship.

In McCreery v. Somerville, 22 U.S. 354 (1824), the Supreme Court ruled that, in Maryland, you may not inherit from a living ancestor. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' citizenship was irrelevant. Regardless of whether they were or were not U.S. citizens, the plaintiffs could not, in either case, inherit from a relative who was still alive [29].

Justice Gray misrepresented all four of the above-mentioned Supreme Court rulings. None of them supports his contention that birthplace alone determines federal citizenship.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.' 19 How 60 U.S. 576

And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges. (Justice Gray, Opinion of the Court, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

Justice Gray gave the impression that, in Scott v. Sandford, all of the other judges agreed with Curtis, that "natural born citizen" status is determined by birthplace alone. But this impression is factually incorrect. Justice Daniel, concurring with the majority in Scott v. Sandford, characterized the 1797 English-language Law of Nations definition of natural born citizen ("those born in the country of parents who are citizens") as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection). (Justice Daniel, Concurring Opinion, Scott v. Sandford, 1857).

Just more observations about Justice Gray and Won Kim Ark.

Lets further examine the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

Four facts directly impugn the Supreme Court's reasoning in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:

Justice gray ignored (deemed "not admissible") the 1866 congressional debates:
In his written opinion, Justice Gray admitted that his understanding of the word "jurisdiction," as used in the 14th Amendment, was based on presumption, not direct evidence. Justice Gray dismissed, as "not admissible", the transcripts of the 1866 congressional debates, in which the Framers explained the meaning of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court did not consider evidence showing that the intended meaning of "jurisdiction" was sole and complete jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power. (For a discussion of the originally intended meaning of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment.

Justice Gray's reasoning relied on an erroneous footnote in an article by Horace Binney:

Horace Binney published three editions of his article titled "The Alienigenae of the United States". The first two editions were privately published in December 1853. The Third (Final) Edition was published in the American Law Register in February 1854.

In the erroneous text, foreign-born children do not receive U.S. citizenship solely by descent from their parents. The citizenship of such children depends on their subsequent residence in the United States. Based on the erroneous text, Binney added a footnote asserting that descent, by itself, is never sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship at birth:

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. (Binney (2nd ed.), footnote, p.22).

Justice Gray cited Binney's footnote, both in the Opinion of the Court and in the Court's ruling. But Binney's footnote was factually incorrect, in large part because it was based on a misquote of the 1790 Naturalization Act. In the final edition of Binney's article, the 1790 Naturalization Act was cited correctly and the erroneous footnote was deleted. Binney's footnote, though erroneous and though deleted from the final version of Binney's article, nevertheless became one of the cornerstones of Justice Gray's reasoning in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

Continued below

Since you like the won kin ark case lets examine the decision:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. (Horace Gray, Majority Opinion, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898)

The Supreme Court did not rule that Wong was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen.

The Court ruled that Wong was a citizen because, at the time of his birth, his parents had "permanent domicile and residence" in the United States and was "carrying on business" in the United States.

The Court mentioned that Wong's parents were subject to the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 between China and the United States. That treaty contained an unusual provision, not found in other U.S. treaties, which granted Chinese immigrants the "inherent and inalienable right" to change their "home and allegiance". Although permanently-resident Chinese immigrants were not permitted to become naturalized U.S. citizens, they had an "inherent and inalienable right" to become nationals of the United States; and children born in the United States, of U.S. nationals, are citizens within the originally-intended meaning of the 14th Amendment (Objectively Gray).

In the majority opinion, Justice Horace Gray cited sources which seem to suggest natural born citizenship requires something more than birth on U.S. soil. For example, he quoted the following from Minor v. Happersett (1874):

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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. (Minor v. Happersett (1874), as quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898))

Justice Gray also quoted from an article, by Horace Binney, which used the term "natural born" in connection with a child of a U.S. citizen, but not in connection with a U.S.-born child of an alien. In Binney's opinion, both children were U.S. citizens, but only the U.S.-born child of a citizen was labeled "natural born":

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. (Binney (2nd ed.), as quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898))

The court's own decision good enough quote for you or is it cherry picking?

Do you think that BZ is a conservative? Read back over the comments. Starting with the one you just responded to. I've been on a lot of liberal sites and received the same arguments. And been called the same names - racist because I don't like the one and oppose him because I don't think he is a Natural Born Citizen; or progressive because I don't interpret the Constitution their way. Sorry read enough books and you will find someone that supports your interpretation of history. Dueling quotes is not an argument. Go through the SCOTUS decisions on citizenship yourself, none have ever called a person with a foreign parent a natural born citizen.

Not so much worried about the leaks to the press but how much classified information is going to the Chinese and the Russians.