There is no “thresh hold”. You don’t kinda move the bar depending on how one feels today. What there is, is case law. There is Wong. And Wong defines NBC.
You don’t start playing with laws, and making up thresh holds because you don’t like who won the election. That’s what they do in places like uh uh Venezuela. You know, you just change the law as you want...And Cuba, I think a lot of their law is kinda subjective. Whatever a couple of guys named Castro want it to be.
You are lucky enough to live here. You should take the time to understand the laws that apply to this.
parsy
If you don’t understand the concept of threshold in law, you should consult a law professor or sign up for some classes.
The concept is fundamental, and a bit of contemplation will inform you that it’s extremely important in legal interpretation.
It’s this easy: do we look the other way while some brainwashed narcissist (who wants to tear down the country in retaliation against his parents who abandoned him in childhood) signs up for the presidential election, or do we apply a very high standard—that is, threshold—of proof that he’s eligible?
Anyone who says we should apply a low standard (and that’s all you antibirthers have done with your thousands of hours on this website) better come up with a good reason, and address it directly and specifically.
Definitions are generally fairly compact things. A few sentences at most. Show us where Wong defines "Natural Born Citizen", not "Natural Born Subject", as anything other than "child of citizens born in the country", as it does in the citiation/quote from Minor v. Happersett
"all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
That in turn very closely mirrors the definition in "Law of Nations". Very closely indeed.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.