No Jeff. It is only in YOUR MIND that my arguments have been "repeatedly shown to be fallacy after fallacy." In the real world, you haven't scratched them at all. You probably don't even believe this yourself. If you did, you wouldn't likely be so worked up about them.
That's a rather odd statement, coming from someone who omits the entire record of what early legal authorities said "natural born citizen" meant, and who attempts to paint those who present the historical view, which is agreed upon by every substantial conservative Constitutional organization in existence, and by conservative Constitutional experts like Mark Levin, as a "troll," an "Obot," a "liberal," and worse.
Jeff, every statement you make is odd, especially those in which you keep imploring the spirit of Mark Levin to come and save you. I have not been debating Mark Levin, and frankly I think he would come off the worse for it if I were, but Mark Levin's offhand agreement with you does not constitute proof of anything. George Will and Ann Coulter happen to agree with me. Does it prove me correct?
Again, this is the fallacy of false authority. (since you don't like the original Latin names, I thought I would make it simpler for you.)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Are you taking up comedy now?
It appears that Ann Coulter might in fact agree with you. I may write her, however, to ask whether she does.
As for George Will, no, I don't believe he agrees with you. An argument that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is not an argument that legal immigrants aren't. If Will were to make the latter, of course, according to the Wong Supreme Court, he would be wrong. Because the Wong Court was absolutely clear that legal immigrants domiciled here are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They were equally clear that their children are natural born citizens.
I hope you're able to put together that debate with Mark Levin. I'd love to hear it.