“But the correct answer isn’t always what people want to hear.”
You’re right there, but your interpretation of US v Wong Kim Ark and your understanding of “natural born citizen” and “citizen by birth” are a bit off.
The Wong court only determined that the child was a ‘citizen by birth.’ The generation of ‘anchor babies’ being born today to illegal aliens are not ‘natural born citizens,’ although they are, in fact, ‘citizens by birth.’ Their parents are not citizens of the USA and they are, therefore, NOT ‘natural born citizens.’
There is no U.S. law that requires the parents of citizens at birth to be citizens.
Look at it this way:
If you are born and you are a citizen, then are you an alien? No. You are NOT an alien if you are born a citizen (citizen at birth).
If you are born and you are a citizen, are you a naturalized citizen? No. No. You are NOT a naturalized citizen if you are born a citizen (citizen at birth).
If you are born and you are a citizen, are you a natural born citizen? Yes.
Sorry, but the US vs Ark case clearly defines the named as being “natural born”; not merely a U.S. citizen, but specifically says “natural born”.
There is absolutely no legal requirement that one have two U.S. citizens to be natural born.
One merely has to be a U.S. citizen at birth.
“Their parents are not citizens of the USA and they are, therefore, NOT ‘natural born citizens.’”
***
The above is nowhere in U.S. law. It’s a myth. Citizenship of the parents only matters if a child is born OUTSIDE the United States. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html.