“I never posted what you said I posted...” then you quote me.....
“You left out quite a lot there. The court defines NBC, born in country to 2 citizen parents, and then goes on to ask rhetoricaly about the citizenship of people that do not meet that definition of 2 parents...notice that they ask in effect.....are they citizens?.....The court ruled, because of the 14 Amendment that there were citizens other than Natural Born Citizens, and that these citizens enjoyed full citizenship and had the same rights as the NBCs.”
“I didn’t say that.”....no I wrote that. Are you following this conversation? I like Islay single malt like “Balmore” myself!
“I have been asking if there were citizens other than naturalized or natural-born, and have yet to see a CITATION (your say so means nothing) otherwise. Whoever said the above, did they give a citation for their contention that there were citizens other than NBC’s (and naturalized of course)?”
A citation? sigh!
Read and understand Kim Wong Arc. The whole case revolves on citizenship other than NBC.....!
You keep posting exerpts from it yet seemingly fail to understand it.....read it in its full context! You’ll answer your own question above!
Kim Wong Arc was declared a citizen other than a NBC. The court used the 14 amendment for their finding of non NBC citizenship.
Either way they never say Kim Wong Ark isn't a natural born citizen. They say that he would be, according to English precedent, a “natural born subject”, and that in accordance with this principle, he would be “as much a citizen” as the natural born child of citizen parents.
That is quite a LONG way from carving out a particular category apart from being either a naturalized or natural born citizen. So far it is like WAY OUT THERE!
SO do you take the bet?
Come on? You sure seemed confident when you said you were going to win and I was going to lose and laughed.