Out of context on Gray quoting Waite. YOU provide the context of the statement, please, if you are able. I know where it is, and I can, but it is time for you to prove you know how to read, and comprehend, not me. Plus, this is YOUR theory, sooo YOU start proving it with something besides conclusions.
There was a controversy over where Chester Arthur was born. The election was only 5 years after Minor Happersett, so YOU please explain why YOUR citizenship case of the ages was ignored. People were certainly aware his father was from Ireland. If you need help, look up A.P. Hinman.
Please also explain how a lawyer, A.P.Hinman was apparently unaware of the two citizen parent theory when it was only 5 years old, by YOUR theory. Please explain on what basis Hinman objected to Arthur.
Also please explain why Judge Waite, who YOU claim just decided that NBC required two citizen parents, swore in 5-ish years later Chester Arthur who had but one citizen parent.
Please also provide the analysis of Wong Kim Ark that I previously asked for, by section. Explaining for each section what the section was about, with representative language, and how that language tied in to the rest of the decision.
WKA has 19,464 words in it, and to date you have tried to characterize it by maybe 20 or so words. Or 1% of 1%. Please explain the other 99.99% please as I have asked above. YOU are the one with a minority theory, and it is time for YOU to start doing some homework on it.
Haven’t you noticed on this thread how YOU are constantly being provided a ton of information and cites by people, which you ignore. That needs to change. This is YOUR theory, so YOU need to start doing the explanatory work on it. YOU explain the inconsistencies. YOU explain the contradictions. YOU have been spoiled. Maybe that which you obtained too easily, you esteem too lightly.
There's nothing out of context. You've seen the Gray citations of Waite several times now and you've been proven wrong over and over on your belief.
There was a controversy over where Chester Arthur was born. The election was only 5 years after Minor Happersett, so YOU please explain why YOUR citizenship case of the ages was ignored. People were certainly aware his father was from Ireland. If you need help, look up A.P. Hinman.
I'm not going on a goose chase because you can't support your argument. If you think you have something, you need to cite it. Otherwise, whatever point you think you have fails. It will most likely fail anyway, but one does NOT have other people do their work for them.
Also please explain why Judge Waite, who YOU claim just decided that NBC required two citizen parents, swore in 5-ish years later Chester Arthur who had but one citizen parent.
Both of his parents were citizens. The father naturalized when Arthur was still in his minority. There's no evidence that Waite would have known about the timing of when Arthur's father was naturalized. If you have evidence to show that he knew and ignored it, let's see this evidence.
Please also provide the analysis of Wong Kim Ark that I previously asked for, by section. Explaining for each section what the section was about, with representative language, and how that language tied in to the rest of the decision.
Nobody owes you an "analysis." The case and context has been explained to you several times, but particuarly in this post: #572.
Haven’t you noticed on this thread how YOU are constantly being provided a ton of information and cites by people, which you ignore.
Haven't you noticed on this thread how YOU are constantly ignoring that I've debunked everything that has been provided?? ... and that I've provided much more information and citations that support what I've said??? I've explained YOUR contradictions and YOUR inconsistencies and you simply ignore that. And ONE MORE TIME ... I'm not pushing a "theory" ... the Courts are very clear: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. THESE are the natural born citizens.