The following is the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no clearer statement of the issue of who is natural born than this.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
“III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’
True to legal form, the question put before the court was extremely narrow and explicitly described. No question of natural-born citizen was raised in it. Only the concept of “citizen” is in question and this is reinforced by adjoining “born or naturalized” to it (natural-born-citizens would not required naturalization). The ruling in Wong Kim Ark is careful to step around the NBC definition. And the SCOTUS does not have the authority to define natural born citizen in any shape way or form. The legislature is granted in the Constitution the ability to manifest uniform rules of naturalization. But even the legislature is not granted the authority to redefine NBC from what it was commonly known to be. To grant that authority would (should) necessitate a Constitutional Amendment — but of course the liberals and Obamunists prefer to legislate from the bench.
Bottom line, SCOTUS cannot define NBC and does not do so in Wong Kim Ark — it only affirms “citizen”ship for the individual meeting the above listed criteria.
I say we take the entirety of what your side says and the enirety of what my side says to the SCOTUS for adjudication. It is CLEAR that we need a precedental ruling that deals with this issue directly and not peripherally, so we may establish stare decisis in this matter.
But your boy Hussein is DETERMINED to avoid a judicial inquiry undoubtedly because he fears that the outcome will not be in his favor.
That is why he has spent over $1,352,000 on legions of lawyers to quash the issue.