More gibberish and law butchering and mangling by you. Vattel is not quoted and his name is not even mentioned in that case.
Wong Kim Ark was a long case because they went over the whole history of common law stuff, then had to answer the LOSING side on their stuff, then had to discuss the 14th Amendment, and all the Chinese law stuff, and then they finished, and toward the bottom wrapped it all together where anybody but a Vattle Birther would get it:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that. . .all 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. . .contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Which, you will butcher the quote and mangle the law for sure, but still I wonder WHY??? Are you addicted to being wrong??? Or do you have a hidden reason for misrepresenting stuff here to keep Rubio and Jindal from running???
Nice find, Squeeky.
Sorry, the only gibberish, butchering and mangling is by you. I never said Vattel was quoted. Helps to read what is there instead of argue something that isn't.
Wong Kim Ark was a long case because they went over the whole history of common law stuff, then had to answer the LOSING side on their stuff, then had to discuss the 14th Amendment, and all the Chinese law stuff, and then they finished, and toward the bottom wrapped it all together where anybody but a Vattle Birther would get it:
No one answered to a "losing" side of anything. And what "Chinese law stuff" are you referring to?? You're punting the question. If Lynch was a compelling legal precedent, what was the point in writing 32 more pages of decision?? I know why, but obviously you don't have a clue. Try again, squeezy. Think this time.
Also, the quote you grabbed and highlighted supports MY argument, not yours. This doesn't address natural-born citizneship. This is a discussion ONLY of the 14th amendment and the type of citizenship IT defines, which I've explained to you was called "citizenship by birth" by Gray. I showed you the dozen or so times he used that term and never tried to equate it with NBC.