[RC one]

Tell me how Citizen differs from Subject, as many have done already.

....Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

"British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown. "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

[Cold Heat]

I see no difference. Subject = Citizen... Simple semantics from the point of view of the citizen. To the government, it's the same with the same adjustment for a alien. As I said, the colonists found the term revolting...but ended up with a national government that treats it's citizens just as they would a subject. Electing a president as opposed to a anointed King, did not seem to matter much in terms of responsibilities of the subject/citizen to it's Crown/Executive branch.

Your case with Wong that you continue to use as proof, treats anyone (Mr. Wong/anchor baby) as a natural born citizen. And that is all it does, which is why I said it was not decided correctly. What you cite as proof is but dicta and only interesting for discussion purposes, and not determinate of the law concerning Cruz,

But I repeat my self, far too many times for my own peace of mind, so I will end it here and restate the obvious fact that no case will make it to SCOTUS on this, and that they do not want to rule on this political case.

Unless something unexpected occurs, I believe they will leave it ambiguous, because the intent was national security and national security concerning individuals is always ambiguous because it must be. If set in stone it would be easily exploited by those seeking to do damage. Simply by following the letter of the law.

If you do not see that, then I am unlikely to ever win a single point of logic with you.