The Supreme Court have had many opportunities to declare citizens natural born and they have, and have had the same opportunities not to call them natural born citizens.
In the 1939, Perkins vs. Elg, the Supreme Court specifically referred to Miss Elg as a natural born citizen.
In another SCOTUS court case
KAWAKITA V. UNITED STATES, 343 U. S. 717 (1952)
"At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; "
We see that Kawakita born in the United States and described as a native born. Why did they call him native born and not natural born? The answer to that question is obvious, And we see Kawakita also too an oath of allegiance to the United States? No natural born would have to do that because being a natural born citizen there is no question about the allegiance to a country.
Do you think you can reach the obvious and correct conclusion? I doubt you will since you like to drink the Jim Jones grape juice. Lets look a little further.
"MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. -snip-
First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97." We see in the bold above the Supreme Court declaring Kawikita as a US citizen because of the 14th Amendment, but we also see they only declared him as a "native born citizen" who once took an allegiance to the U.S.
What is the logical conclusion? The Supreme Court does NOT see all 14th Amendment citizens as natural born when foreign citizens give birth to children in the United States.
Didn't El Gato tell you the Indiana case as ...what did he call it fluff?
It was described as "fluff" by a couple of lawyers each on different sides of the political spectrum. In other words, it is total BS.
That Indiana opinion is so bad I doubt it could hold up to the scrutiny of grade school children on quaaludes.
This court was asked and did say it because the answer is pretty straight forward. So you do what people ignorant of the law always do—sit on your bar stool and snarl nastily about judges and anyone else competent in the subject matter.
Oh nonsense, you spouting your clap trap. Your excuse doesn't address the Indiana Appeals Court for their faulty logic, and being deceptive. Fortunately, their silly opinion only applies to Indiana state.
Actually I was speaking of the majority of the majority opinion in "Wong Kim Ark".