You wrote, “The case of child born in the US where one parent is a non-citizen is not a gray border case, it is in the area of settled cases. Such a child may become a citizen by law, but is NOT a natural born citizen.”
That is simply stupid. I suggest you read the decision of the Supreme Court, which disposes of your statement using a two-prong argument: that WKA was a natural born citizen, and that he was a born citizen per the 14th Amendment. And since the Constitution outweighs a treaty with China, the child of TWO foreigners born in the USA is a born citizen, and a natural born citizen.
The decision is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Of course, like most birthers, you are better at slinging mud than discussing things with reason.
What reason do you provide besides dragging in a maggot infested dead rat of a ruling. In fact as ANY HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL OR GREATER READER who has read this thread is already aware, my summary was based on the redaction, commentary and extracts of a twenty plus year discussion in a New York newspaper. No where in that was Wonk King Ark mentioned.
In your first idiotic post to me in this thread you made the embarrassingly stupid on your part comment that somehow I had not read the Constitution.
That was an stupid comment because you weren’t talking about the Constitution at all you were talking about a dead rat of a decision by the Court. The Court does not have the last say, you know. It is We the People who in the end decide what the Constitution will mean in practice.
By that idiot’s logic you also say that the Constitution says a negro is not a full human entitled to basic human rights because the of Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a defective interpretation of the Constitution.