[Danae]

Panel of three one dissented if I remember correctly. Regardless, WKA made the differentiation between Citizen and Natural Born citizen, but did not define Natural Born Citizen.

You can talk yourself up a wall tillyou are blue in the face. You are still wrong.

There is a difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen.

A citizen can have claim by a number of foreign powers.

A Natural Born Citizen ONLY has that of one Nation, in our case the United States.

Sorry bud, your logic not only fails it fails spectacularly.

A Natural Born citizen is always a citizen. A citizen is NOT always a natural born citizen.

Back to school for you.

[EnderWiggins]

"Panel of three one dissented if I remember correctly."

You do not remember correctly. Panel of three, the decision was unanimous.

"Regardless, WKA made the differentiation between Citizen and Natural Born citizen, but did not define Natural Born Citizen."

Wong Kim Ark defined natural born citizens at least three different times within its discussion. And the Indiana tribunal has no difficulty whatsoever understanding exactly what that definition was.

"There is a difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen."

Again.... duh. Citizen is the general category. It contains two subcategories; natural born and naturalized. There are no others.

"A citizen can have claim by a number of foreign powers."

Yes. This is true for all classes of citizen, including both naturalized and natural born.

"A Natural Born Citizen ONLY has that of one Nation, in our case the United States."

No such law has ever existed in all of American history. You really have to stop making stuff up.