The first one to resort to name calling loses the debate.
If you want to try and salvage your arguments and positions, try using the Constitution or the Amendments to show where the authority of Congress to establish the rules of naturalization are limited rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Oh and since I have already referenced the 14th amendment re-establishing jus soli as justification for citizenship, you can’t use that.
You’re like Bill Clinton attempting to argue that day is night and night is day and the definition of is. You obviously have no clue about the definitions of the words you are using, much less the Constitution using those words. In other words, you are wasting my time with noob errors that have no place in a reasoned discussion. You can kick and carry on all you want, but I am out of patience with people who choose not to respect my time and efforts. You have an obligation to respect the usage of the words that are the foundation of the issue under discussion. Come back when you can demonstrate a valid understanding of what the words and word phrases such as “natural”, “natural law”, and naturalization” actually mean. I have spent the years since 1964 researching these terminologies and their usage, so I don’t need you to come here with a bunch of juvenile taunts and negligence of the legal terminology to waste my time and energy better spent on my personal affairs and to help friends and opponents who have a genuine and respectful desire to learn from debating actual conflicts in the issues versus beginner errors and neglectful ignorance that waste everyone’s time and energies. If you are offended by this blunt dismissal of your errant nonsense, tough. We have more qualified opponents to waste our time in debate over issues that are real conflicts.