Yes, as I stated before, I have little doubt that you fully agree with Gray's view of the law.
You and Gray are twin minds who think exactly alike. If you were contemporaries, you would finish each other's sentences. You are soul mates, separated in time.
Why, I bet you think Gray is the last word on what the law ought to be, and i'm sure you believe his legal opinions ought to be completely embraced by our government.
If it weren't for the hilarity you provide, I wouldn't see any use for you at all.
On the point that, following the English rule we inherited, all persons born here even of aliens in amity are "natural born citizens," he and I agree.
On the point that recognition of this rule has been consistent from the time of the framing of the Constitution, through our earliest and most significant legal writers, and through the 39th Congress, which affirmed (citing some of these same writers and Lynch v. Clarke) he and I agree.
On the point that his opinion in WKA was contrary to the views expressed in the 39th Congress, he and I agree that it was not -- the 39th Congress referenced many of the same authorities as Gray. On the point that it's impossible to explain how the Framers could take a phrase in English -- "natural born" -- which had a consistent meaning of "born on the soil" and which when coupled with "subject" and "citizen" was used interchangeably in the period 1776 to 1787 -- and then purport to utilize that phrase, supposedly now ascribing to it a different meaning, while leaving no record they were changing meaning. (This has been pointed out to you now at least a half dozen or more times -- your silence is noted).
On the point that a person who tries to make it appear that Cong. Wilson was endorsing a jus sanguinis view by quoting this:
“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
when what in fact Wilson stated included extensive reference to Blackstone before that, followed by a citation to William Rawle at the end:
"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."
while trying to conceal the truncation by omitting the citation -- that a person who does that is a deceitful putz, I'm sure Gray and I would agree.