Nope
The argument placed before the judge was stated as including:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
The Judge did not directly address the definition of "natural-born" citizenship. The judgement was concerning deportation.
With a little effort I can cite you the portion of the Naturalisation and Immigration Act of 1952 and subsequent revisions that actually concern the requirements of "natural-born" citizenship.
It is not what you try to state. It requires both parents be citizens, with undivided loyalties. Citizenship by birth is another matter, if you are born on U.S. soil your a citizen, but not a natural born citizen unless both parents were citizens at the time of birth.
Exactly. The judgment was about deportation. The judge did not directly address the definition of "wife," "children," "job," or "Chicago," either. He accepted them as facts--just as he accepted the natural-born citizenship of the children as a fact. You may think he was wrong to do so, but to argue that he didn't do it at all is a little nuts.