That was the dissent. It thus does not constitute a holding of the Supreme Court. And there is sufficient ambiguity in his words, anyway. Regarding my comment earlier on Law of Nations, I was referring to the term as it appeared in the Constitution. There, it was not referring to the book, but in the Venus case I take your word for it. But again, the dissent is not binding on us. You are free to use it as an argument, but it is not the case that I must accept it. On the other hand, what the Supreme Court has ruled in various other citizenship cases, both you and I are required to accept as binding law.
You use purposed deceit. You try to mischaraterize what people post in discussion so you can then attack the mischaracterization as if it were the actual, proving your motivation is not to discuss, it is to herd the discussion where you've been instructed to take it if you can. You're a smartaleck, pretending to be something you are not. And you darn sure aren't the 'superior intellect' you assert yourself to be, clever, but a rube for the most part.