Yes, well, I notice you assert that it's "complete nonsense," and yet you don't attempt to refute even one single point.
Because you can't. Heck, most of the post consists of direct quotation from the majority opinion in one of the cases that you cite.
You said:
Go read the decisions:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Each one of those opinions says two parents that are citizens.
Do you think I haven't read EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases?
NOT what someone else has written about them. I've read the original decisions. That's how I arrived at my opinion.
Before I read those cases (and more), I had no opinion, because I didn't know yet.
You assert that "each one of those opinions says two parents that are citizens." I've just quoted from Wong Kim Ark. Please tell me where in the majority opinion - agreed to by all but two Justices, a clear decision - of Wong Kim Ark it says that BOTH jus soli AND jus sanguinis are REQUIRED to confer natural born status.
You CAN'T, because it DOESN'T.
And please explain why ALL of the quotations I've quoted FROM THAT CASE that say the exact opposite -- that the precedent is that jus soli alone is all is needed to confer natural born status, and that there is NO reason why this shouldn't also apply in the United States -- should be COMPLETELY IGNORED.
>> “And please explain why ALL of the quotations I’ve quoted FROM THAT CASE that say the exact opposite — that the precedent is that jus soli alone is all is needed to confer natural born status...” <<
.
Because you have not quoted anything, you have patched words together from different paragraphs like every other liar here that posts this garbage.