Diogenes Lamp wrote:
And I have a Modern day court answer for this. Rogers v Bellei.
A Natural born citizen cannot be stripped of citizenship through inaction.
Now your rebuttal ought not include a reference to Wong Kim Ark unless you can find somewhere in that ruling a place where it says a "natural born citizen" can be stripped of citizenship by inaction. If you can find such text in that decision, then it is appropriate to quote that decision. If you cannot find words to that effect in that decision, then it is merely a waste of both our time's for you to quote that decision.
Now I presume you regard yourself as knowledgeable, intelligent and logical, so therefore I would also presume you understand what is the meaning of "addressing the point."
With that in mind, rebut my statement with a pertinent cite if you can, or if not, do the honest thing and admit the point is beyond reproach.
Back to you.
You do not get to control the procedure of the discussion, particularly when your side has lost 317 legal challenges in a row in courts at every level of the judiciary from small claims court in Florida to the Supreme Court of the United States.
You’re a one trick pony: Minor v. Happersett, a women’s suffrage case at that.
US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): “ [An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”