Wilson would presumably have been eligible for dual citizenship in the eyes of the British government. Was he then a natural born citizen, even though his mother may have been recognized by the British government as a British subject all along?
It's amazing how you think this is all so simple and settled. If it's simple and settled -- a no-brainer -- then you lose because the consensus has already been established and it goes against your view. Only if there's some ambiguity and difficulty and uncertainty does your view have a ghost of a chance.
The Laws of the United States in regarding it's citizens trump the laws of other nations that may lay claim to them. Upon Marriage, Mrs. Wilson became a US Citizen. The fact that another nation may still recognize her as a citizen is immaterial to how the US Government views her. We are bound by our laws, not England's.
Wilson would presumably have been eligible for dual citizenship in the eyes of the British government. Was he then a natural born citizen, even though his mother may have been recognized by the British government as a British subject all along?
Ireland extends Irish Citizenship to anyone of Irish descent. I am told that Italy and Israel do the same for descendents of their former nationals. None of this makes such people "Dual Citizens." The only way that Mrs. Wilson's son would not be a "Natural Born Citizen" is if Mrs. Wilson explicitly rejected her naturalized citizenship prior to the birth of the child. The Child would then be a defacto "dual" citizen.
It's amazing how you think this is all so simple and settled. If it's simple and settled -- a no-brainer -- then you lose because the consensus has already been established and it goes against your view. Only if there's some ambiguity and difficulty and uncertainty does your view have a ghost of a chance.
Not at all. The only thing required is to better educate people who have a false understanding of the issue. Your Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.