That is a non-sequitur. If congress declares the naturalization to occur at birth, then they are naturalized "at birth." Just because they become citizens "at birth" does not make them natural citizens.
Now you quoted "Wong Kim Ark" in your response. Let me point out to you something the court was quite clear about in that decision.
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, ...
.
.
The “lots of people saying it” in my case are those tasked with the duty of ascertaining eligibility of a candidate, judges and the Harvard Law Review.
And making a total muck of it because they are all just one big echo-chamber of their own opinions. Not a single one of them has noticed that clause in the Wong Kim Ark decision, and they are all following the same dead-end logical rut that others in their ignorance, have laid down before them.
But, as I said, nothing will change your mind as it is closed on the subject.
Relevant facts, and not opinions from modern day ignorant people will change my opinion. When you produce some of those, I will listen.
The idea that you can pass a law in 1922 (*the Cable Act) to make someone into a "natural born citizen" who wasn't a natural born citizen in 1921 is just logically ridiculous.
Subsequent acts of law cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution.
.
.
* The Cable act of 1922 was the first US law to allow citizenship to be passed down by female citizens to children born in foreign countries. Prior to 1922, *ONLY* males could pass on citizenship to children born out of US Jurisdiction.
“Subsequent acts of law cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution.”
Then you’ve shown you have a misunderstanding of how and why the constitution was written. There are procedures in place to amend it, as has been done. It also was never meant to be all encompassing, permitting laws and courts to rule on matters that it did not specifically address such as this one. And the fact is the Constitution does not specify the meaning of NBC.