“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.
‘He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,’ That's right. Kawikita's parents were foreign citizens just like Wong Ark's parents. Wong Ark was only affirmed by Gray as only a citizen.
“All natural born citizens are native born citizens but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.”
At long last, according to what?!?!
Again, the 1898 Wong Kim Ark opinion. He was a native - and NOT a natural born citizen as affirmed by justice Gray.
“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.
Nothing? Evidence of nothing? LoL! You guys are clowns. I'm in pretty good company. We see that Kawikita v. United States is cited in a brief for the Supreme Court.
