A common fallacy by the After-Birthers is that native and natural born are interchangeable in meaning. The Supreme Court has consistently used the two terms as distinct in meaning. They do not know how to read a court legal opinion. I've gone over about 6 SCOTUS legal opinions about citizenship from circa 1870 to 1953 and they all show distinction between native v. natural with the Perkins v. Elg, 1939 case being the key.
They really confuse the long and dry and confusing dictum in the 1898 Wong ARK opinion as the facts and the holdings of the case. Nowhere in the dictum does the majority opinion refer to Ark as natural born, but it does say he is a native born in the first part of the body of the opinion where the facts are presented. In fact, Kim Ark is barely mentioned in the dictum.
Thank you for the heads up on the obdurate minds of the Obama apologists that populate this thread.
Might as well talk to a brick wall!
See post #551.
STE=Q