What most people miss, and what socialist never talk about, is that in order for the social justice scheme of " from each according to their means, to each according to their needs.." to work REQUIRES an "arbitrator class" to do the taking and giving.

In that environment the haves loose 1st and the have nots can never be satisfied and the arbitrators live high on the hog as long as they can protect themselves from the haves and have nots.

You are moron... the Right of Citizenship is possessed by the person who IS a U.S. Citizen to the benefit of the progeny.... MORON with an agenda deflects from any trurth or fact that you encounter...

See, this is why you are incapable of understanding..... THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP.... ... THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP... THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP... THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP... THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP ..Once obtained is retained and affects any child of a U.S. Citizen parent .... just consider yourself taught evcen if your not... you choose not to think in your desire to deny ...

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web...

Learn the Law and Obey it....

Who gave you the right to LIMIT the types of Citizens to ONLY naturalized and natural born.... according to you the children born to mixed nationality couples do not have the choice of citizenship at birth...??? You are a intellectually dishonest and I grow tired of these narrowing post boxes so take you copy of the "0"s BC and buy yourself a brain with it....

You are a moron..... show me WHERE in the 14th Amendment that U.S. natural born Citizens are mentioned or WHERE in the 14th the States were asked to agree to an Amended provision of the Executive Articles......

Look, I AM INTRANSIGENT on this subject and MY PREMISE of Constitutional LAW, and all you do with your inane responses is prove my point that I must be right because you do NOT base any of your interpretations on the ACTUAL LAWS of the U.S., but rely on narratives, dicta and misinterpretations.

SHOW ME THE LAWS you support that says that a U.S. natural born Citizen is ANYTHING except a child born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents born within the limits of the U.S.

LAW, NOT DICTA within OPINIONS that say otherwise in the final ORDER.

DO you DENY that A@S!C% REQUIRES that a distinction MUST exist between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen" ....???

Show me WHERE it INCLUDES U.S. natural born Citizens ...... and NOT that ass-hat DICTA you are so fond of.... WHERE in the 8 USC are the children of TWO (2) U.S. Citizen parents mentioned .... except when they may be out of the limits of the U.S. !!!??!!!

When a child of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents is born within the limits of the U.S. there is NO Statute or Declaratory language required because BOTH Parents possess the "Right of Citizenship" as ESTABLISHED in the 1790 ET SEQ, Acts and it REMAINS as a Statute at Large.

You are obviously intentionally obtuse or you would understand that the RIGHT of CITIZENSHIP that is part of every U.S. Citizens citizenship "benefits and immunity's" presupposses the Citizenship of the child whereas the "collective naturalization provisions" provides citizenship after the fact of the birth, subject to the exceptions, conditions, circumstances and provisos expressed in the Laws.

But, keep your head where its comfortable, I however prefer the fresh clean smell of TRUTH.

There is no MAYBE about it, it IS a "declaratory born citizen collective naturalization provision" that was originally intended to cure the condition of STATELESSNESS, insofar as "National Political Character" was concerned, that the "emancipated blacks", (freed from enslavement). who were then restored to personhood by the 1866 Civil Rights Act and its reiteration in the 13th Amendment which then REQUIRED their COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION to be MADE U.S. Citizens so as to enjoy the benefits of U.S. Citizenship, such as voting rights and access to Federal Courts. Once those blacks became U.S. Citizens then they too possessed the Right of Citizenship that their children derived THEIR U.S. Citizenship from, being the established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship once a person is a U.S. Citizen; i.e., "Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world"(slc), in the general sense being subject to exceptions, conditions and or provisos.

The 14th did NOT Amend the attendant circumstances REQUIRED to be in congruity with the term of words usage and intent found in A2S1C5, i.e., being born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father, anywhere in the world between March of 1790 and January 1795, thereafter, only within the limits of the U.S., then reconciled for the 1922 Cable Act which then requires each parent to be a U.S. Citizen INDEPENDENT of the other.

But I have no sense that you give a rats ass about the TRUTH and integrity of the COTUS or ITS actual laws, as noted above.

Don't be obtuse........... you are citing the "collective naturalization provisions" that MAKE a child a U.S. Citizen at birth........ CITIZEN at BIRTH by statute is NOT the same as a child born as a U.S. natural born Citizen that has derived its U.S. Citizenship from the RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP possessed by the child's PARENTS .....

.... but lacking intellectual honesty you will be unable to internalize the TRUTH on this subject given that the ONLY reason you have ANY interest in it or the COTUS is your intention to protect your dear leader regardless of the issue....

What part of "naturalized at birth" do YOU not understand...???

8 U.S. Code Chapter 12, Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION -
Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409)

The ONLY persons who acquirer U.S. Citizenship at birth WITHOUT the aid of the "collective naturalization statutes" are persons who are born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents who hold their U.S. Citizenship INDEPENDENT of one another, i.e., ACTUAL U.S. natural born Citizens.

I understand that intellectual honesty must be laid aside in order to support your reading of your own posts but the final ORDER of the WKA case says that the Lil' Wong was a "U.S. Citizen" in the OPINION of the Court, and not otherwise.

Had it been the INTENT of the Court to DECLARE that the Lil' Wong WAS a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth the Court would had said so, so that there would be NO AMBIGUITY, after all, to do so would have been a very PROGRESSIVE departure from the historical understanding and of the original intent of the term of words dating back tp Aristotle.