Sorry, but this is pathetic and desperate nonsense. You cited a passage out of context that was NOT controlling in ANY sense. I cited the original passage and the case that IT was citing and gave a link. That you resort to nonsen about monkeys and bananas only speaks to your lack of intellect and maturity.
In 1898 when the Wong Kim Ark case was done. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
That's exactly what I've already told you. "Citizenship by birth" is NOT natural born citizen. The former is defined ONLY by the 14th Amendment, which is what those passages say. You're making my argument for me.
I have already caught YOU doing this exact same thing before, taking something from page 655 of the case, when it is talking about the earlier history of citizenship, BEFORE the 14th Amendment, going back to England in 1608, and then taking part from page 702, when the Judges are talking about AFTER the 14th Amendment:
You're not being honest. When the judges are talking about "after" the 14th amendment, they are NOT talking about natural-born citizenship any longer. They already defined that and STOPPED talking about it. It's why they CHANGED the terminology to "citizenship by birth." It's NOT the same thing.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth . . . What do you think the ancient and fundamental rule is??? It's all that natural born citizen stuff they talked about in the case, that went back to 1608. How do I know this???
(1) I can READ.
(2) The Wong Kim Ark judges said it: "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
(3)Another court said the same thing:
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen. The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents. This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country. THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND. The fourteenth amendment declares : persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’
(4) Vattle Birthers tried YOUR silly nonsense and court and LOST:
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23.
(5) The HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, also read the 14th Amendment and NBC as the same thing:
The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
(6) The Vattle Birthers themselves said:
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
Which means even the Vattle Birthers themselves admit MOST PEOPLE DON'T READ IT THE WAY US VATTLE BIRTHERS DO
Sooo, I don't really care about YOU having an opinion, because it is a free country. BUT, I do care when you try to convince other conservatives that Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible and then don't bother to tell people here that your opinion has lost in court, and is not the view of MOST people.