The court cites WKA, acknowledges it doesn't support their claim, and cites it anyway - AND YOU TAKE IT!
That statement was a quote from the blogger at the native and natural born citizenship explored blog. It was not a statement by me.
However, the courts have ruled that: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
James Madison, the Framer known as “The Father of the Constitution” in a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
CURRENT U.S. law states that one of the criteria to be considered a “Citizen of the United States at Birth” (as opposed to a naturalized U.S. citizen) is: “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, that any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.”— 8 USC 1401
You cite Ankeny, which is a farce, and a naturalization statute and then claim a naturalized “citizen at birth” is a natural born citizen. Your own cite states “citizen”
What a joke.
The court cites WKA, acknowledges it doesn't support their claim, and cites it anyway - AND YOU TAKE IT!