“Your INTERPRETATION is that 0bama is not a NBC because of his foreign citizen parent, based upon nothing shown. It is the decision of Kim Wong Ark that he, or the child of TWO foreign parents, if born in the USA , would be “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizens, and according to the precedent cited a “natural born subject” of these United States.”
There is no difference as to the rights of citizens in the US. All share equally. I never said anything, but that.
Aren’t we talking about eligibilty to become President? I thought we were. A strawman about citizens rights has no place in this discussion.
The Presidency requires a quality of citizenship above the nere title/status of citizen. It requires that you be born on the soil to two citizen parents. The presidency is the only place that a quality of birth is required....
I couldn't agree more. Nobody but YOU said anything about rights. What I am quoting doesn't say “with the same rights as a citizen” or “with the same rights of a citizen” it says “as much a citizen”. In other words it had everything to do with the type of citizenship (the precedent rendering him a natural born subject) and nothing to do with the rights of citizenship.
So why the strawman?
Because you have nothing else?
But a naturalized citizen cannot be said to be “as much a citizen” as a natural born citizen, they are not.
So you are indeed correct, a strawman argument about rights has no place in this discussion, so quit trying to make the argument about that!
Yep, and that is the question at hand. Everything else is just noise or misdirection.