This 1952 SCOTUS opinion backs me up in spades. And I have shown on this thread that people born in the US are citizens by virtue of jus soli birth because of the 14th Amendment, and they are not natural born citizens
Here it is again.
"U.S. Supreme Court
Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)
Kawakita v. United States
At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, ..."
And
"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan., He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97.and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States,..."
You do see this statement above?
"He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,"
You can't get much clearer than this.
Furthermore, All natural born citizens are native born citizens but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.
And we see in Kawikita's case, he was ONLY a native born citizen. The conclusion here is obvious except for the thick-headed.
“And we see in Kawikita’s case, he was ONLY a native born citizen. “
Ah, there is that fallacy of yours ... AGAIN. they never used the word “only”.
Look, if you have blue eyes and red hair, and I described you to someone as having ‘red hair’, would that person then conclude you did NOT have blue eyes? Would my failure to mention you have blue eyes *prove* your eyes were brown?
Of course not.
Show me where SCOTUS says Kawakita is *not* natural-born. If you got that, you have something. If they are silent on it, you got nothing.
Again, Elg is a CLEAR case where even with dual citizenship issues you have someone declared as a natural-born citizen.
natural-born citizen = citizen at time of birth. Case closed.
“You do see this statement above?
‘He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,’
You can’t get much clearer than this.”
I take it you understand this to be significant, but it means nothing more to me than saying someone who was born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents “is thus a citizen of the United States by birth.” What do you think it says? That he’s ONLY a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, and thus not a natural born citizen? It doesn’t say that.
“All natural born citizens are native born citizens but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.”
At long last, according to what?!?!
“And we see in Kawikita’s case, he was ONLY a native born citizen”
Nothing you quoted demonstrates such a claim. The best you can say is that they didn’t use the term natural born. Which in itself is evidence of nothing. You’d think with all these cases shooting down mere native born citizens, a single on of them would tell us that not all antive borns are natural borns. But no, the best we get (from your perspective) is silence on the matter.