The lawyer contends that the results of Wong Kim Ark, say that even if he was born in the US, he is not a US citizen (Natural Born), even tho he was born in SF. His parents were not US citizens. Yet the supreme court says he is a citizen because he was born in SF.
How does that help his case? I presumed that not to be the case. If one parent was not a US citizen, Kenyan, and the other was not in the United States 5 years after her 14th birthday (SADO), he was not a natural born citizen.
I see discrepancy in his argument.
I contend his birthplace is Kenay, that the Lucas Smith BC is genuine, and the COLB shown by FactCheck is a forgery, and the correct COLB shows as such.
http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewtopic.php?t=2536&sid=8903cffcea191d07d67781a24664d53b
In this passage from United States v. Wong Kim Ark
It shows that natural born was not addressed
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.