You know what I find so interesting about the Birther mindset, is how they not only “pretend away” the Wong Kim Ark decision, they also “pretend away” what Vattel himself said! From my BFF’s website:
Some countries do follow Vattel’s line of thinking, but what the Vattel Birthers will seldom tell you, is that even Vattel, himself, recognized some countries do things differently. Like that Big Island sitting across the English Channel from France:
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
Do Birthers sit around and chant to themselves? Do they go get hypnotized into ignoring that? What do they have to do to themselves to become that oblivious to Reality???
I think they are just Sovereign Citizens Lite, and have something insane in the membrane.
What I find so interesting about people on your side is their tendency to lie through straw men.
Nobody is "pretending away" Wong Kim Ark. We are simply noting that it does not say "natural born." It says "citizen", and nothing but "citizen", and it's argument is that Wong Kim Ark derives his citizenship through the 14th amendment.
So Wong Kim Ark is not in conflict with "Natural born citizen" because Wong Kim Ark was not a case about "Natural Born Citizen."
So tell me, do you think the Plessy court, which declared Blacks "Separate but Equal", would agree that a Chinese man, who was banned by statute law from having American citizenship, would be legally able to become President?
Do you think the racist court would have gone that far?
All they had to do was add "natural born" to their decision, but they oddly refrained from doing so.
Now all you clever lawyers come along and equate "natural born citizen" with the Wong court's plain old "citizen", and then declare the rest of us to be disrespecting the court!
Bait and switch. You are trying to pull a bait and switch.
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
Yeah, we broke away from that, rejected their "Subject" and adopted Vattel's "Citizen."
"Citizen" and "Subject" do not even come from the same moral foundation.
A subject is *OWNED* by the King, just as any Lord would own an animal born on his land.
"Citizens" have natural law rights as expressed by many writers of natural law, from John Locke to Burlamaqui.
One of the first things the new nation of the USA did after they won their independence was to toss out every British law which was incompatible with the natural law principles upon which this nation was founded.
"Subject" was the first thing they tossed on the ash heap.
Away from birtherdom, they rage against International Law.