Huh? Are you not claiming that Wong Ark is a natural born citizen? And my response was to WOSG...
WOSG - "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."
Where I responded with the same silliness as he did with,
"Show me where in the SCOTUS opinion of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that said Ark was a natural born CITIZEN? Nope, not there there... "
You guys are weak when it comes to logical inference.
“Huh? Are you not claiming that Wong Ark is a natural born citizen?”
I am claiming that, yes. But I don’t claim it says that in the Ark decision.
“And my response was to WOSG”
Oh, sorry. Thought this was a forum.
“You guys are weak when it comes to logical inference”
Inference is a decent guess, a logically defensible guess. Not a baseless guess. You cannot infer from Obama’s refusal to release documents that he is not eligible (that is, on the basis of place of birth, not on the basis of parentage). Nor can you infer from SCOTUS not calling Kawakita and Ark natural born citizens that Kawakita and Ark weren’t natural born citizens. It doesn’t follow.
Sad thing is, from your point of view, all they’d have to have done was spell it out, in a few words, and no one could argue. Well, they could still argue SCOTUS was wrong, but they couldn’t argue there was no legal precedence for a third category of citizenship. If I were you, I’d be pissed at their silence.