“Clinton himself would be proud of your dissembling”
Huh? I’m not talkingn about the meaning of “is.” I’m not even using very fine distinctions. I’d say I was being a whole lot simpler and more apparent (if laconic) than the guy who brought up the arcane legal textbook.
“Why can’t you admit you made a mistake?”
For the best of reasons: because I didn’t.
“You said that ‘natural born citizen’ meant ‘citizen at birth’”
Uh-huh.
“It doesn’t, because the former is a subset of the latter.”
If that were true, there would be a category of citizen known as “native born but not natural born.” Since there isn’t, and never has been in the history of humankind, perhaps that’s a clue that something’s off.
“A person can be a ‘citizen at birth’, but still not a ‘natural born citizen’”
Wrong.
According to the Vattel's Law of Nations, that category does exist. And the US Supreme Court affirmed it in Minor v. Happersett.
Wrong.
I see. Simply because you said so, with no evidence other than "it can't possibly be true".