You said, “The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401.”
Hmmm. I could just swear I have heard those words before. . .
LIGHTBULBS! Wong Kim Ark!
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]”
Then, the Court declares:
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Here, you can read it all for yourself!
https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/wong-kim-ark-natural-born-citizen/
OR, you can go the “I don’t need no driver’s license, to drive my car!” route.
(You said, “The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401.”
Hmmm. I could just swear I have heard those words before. . .
LIGHTBULBS! Wong Kim Ark!)
Wong was never affirmed a natural born Citizen. He was affirmed a 14th Amendment Citizen based on his parents legal US domicile at his birth. Kamala’s parents weren’t legal US residents nor did they have permanent domicile. Anchor babies aren’t legal US natural born citizens.
No, "natural born citizen" was not defined by Wong Kim Ark.