Notice how this lower state court also jumped from mere citizenship to NBC with no effort at all?As for the Congressional Research Service opinion you cited, it relies almost entirely on Wong Kim Ark. - ...the “two-citizen-parent” argument with respect to native born U.S. citizens has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
It is effortless. Wong Kim Ark has been the prevailing U.S. Supreme Court binding precedent since 1898. 14A prevails against any prior brainfart you may mention or invent.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
The CRS presents the law, not birther brainfarts.
The CRS article also discusses the Chester Alan Arthur presidency but boldly recognizes Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
Chester Arthur served two of the FIFTEEN terms served as President or Vice-President without two U.S. citizen parents. Reality 15, birthers zero.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/179/1017/546639/
Mustata v. U.S. Department of Justice
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) Argued Sept. 21, 1998. Decided and Filed June 17, 1999
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. They legally entered the United States in late 1991 and, shortly thereafter, applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") for asylum.
The CRS Report noted, "See also United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011), agreeing with the underlying legal accuracy of proposed jury instruction defining “natural born citizen” as including one born in the United States, without reference to the citizenship of one’s parents.
1. True, but not as precedence for NBC. The court did not hold WKA was a NBC, with two non-citizen parents that simply was not in issue. In this regard, Google "dicta".
2. The 14thA does not deal with NBC nor does it supersede the founders use of the term; it is irrelevant in the context of NBC.
Regarding your cite of Marguet-Pillado, that case was remanded not because of any NBC issue but rather because the instructions were flawed based on M-P's claim he had derivative citizenship. He was born in Mexico and neither of his biological parents were U.S. citizens - a far cry from NBC.
At this point one can conclude your legal research skills need major improvement.
You say:
14A prevails against any prior brainfart you may mention or invent.
The CRS presents the law, not birther brainfarts.
Get back to me when you can hold an adult conversation.