[Abd al-Rahiim]

I responded to your question. You simply didn't understand my answer. I reiterate, "Are you trying to argue that because the Court 'only' ruled that Wong Kim Ark was '...at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,' they had nothing to say about 'natural-born' citizenship? That's a disingenuous argument, at best." (emphasis added)

Despite readily emphasizing the importance of "natural-born," you are oddly silent on its definition. For the sake of advancing the discussion, please cite a definition, preferably one backed by a SCOTUS case.

[savedbygrace]

No, you didn’t and you still haven’t. You answer that first, and then we’ll move forward.

Instead, it sounds like you’re moving right to snarky. Are you sure you want to go there?