“But the fact remains that the case was not about “natural born citizenship”, it was about citizenship. Wong was not running for President, and that is the only time Natural Born citizenship matters.”
Sorta, but during the Wong analysis, they ended up doing both. The Wong court knew about the NBC clause. They mention the NBC language often. Yet, they say there are only two kinds of citizens-—born here’s and naturalized—and the way they got there was adopting language and English common law as indicative of the Framer’s intent. But since Wong wasn’t running for President, they didn’t need an extra sentence to cover that.
But it is clear that it does. They could have said, “The 14th covers indicates we have 2 kinds of citizens, and BTW, if the NBCX question ever comes up, that makes 3. They didn’t. Because the analysis CLEARLY covers that point.
Is that just my opinion? No. It is the common sense view of most people.
Look at Indiana again:
The Birthers: “Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’ “(page 12)
Now, the Court: “ Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)
And remember the Birther Admission: Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject....
parsy, who is in the majority for once
Sorry, but Indiana was wrong about Wong. As you’ve shown several times, the lack of citizenship was an important element in the decision and it only reached the conclusion because the parents were permanent immigrants who didn’t have temporary allegiance. You posted all the citations that prove this and just ignore these facts in favor of a glossy misunderstanding of the decision. The Indiana court didn’t hear full arguments and made a nonbinding inclusion of its own argument, which is moot to its actual decision. You know as well as I that sloppy work like this gets overturned. This judge is safe, because this part wasn’t binding. The judge would have been better served to write a letter to the editor of the local paper.