The change of US Immigration law (from 1790 version to the one adopted in 1795) indicates that early legislators did not equate citizenship at birth and NBC. The first law (1790) is the only one in the USA history using the phrase NBC (to describe the status of children of US citizens born abroad). The law was changed only five years later and such children were declared as citizens at birth.
If early legislators did not think that two phrases were synonymous - neither should we.
Hamilton suggested that the eligibility requirement for US presidency be citizenship at birth. We know that the adopted language explicitly mentions NBC. The moment we start arguing whether a person is a NBC, the debate is over. When it comes to the NBC definition there is no ambiguity, no debate is needed. Such a child can only have the citizenship (allegiance) at birth to one country. .
The WKA case ruling declares a child born to permanent resident parents a citizen at birth - not an NBC.
As I pointed out, the NBC status of those BORN ABROAD is in doubt. The NBC status of those born inside the US, of parents here legally, is not.
“When it comes to the NBC definition there is no ambiguity, no debate is needed.”
True enough - until 2008. Then people started arguing what had not been argued before - that someone born in the USA of parents here legally was not a NBC.
There IS no debate. No court will waste its time on the birther arguments. The Supreme Court has rejected multiple cases without bothering to hear arguments - because there are none, legally speaking. Only on WND and birther web sites...