There are only two options: either Wong Kim Ark was a naturalized citizen, or he was a natural-born citizen (i.e. a citizen of America by birth).
Are you arguing that Wong Kim Ark was a naturalized citizen? (I'm sure you're not, because the surrounding facts of the case precluded Wong Kim Ark from naturalization altogether.)
The Court's ruling that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen due to the circumstances of his birth means that the Court ruled Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen. They were quite explicit about it: "Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth..."
Have you ever heard of the fallacy of false choice? You are flirting with it very closely here, but in this particular case I assert he was a naturalized citizen, naturalized en masse by the 14th amendment.
You cannot pass a law to make someone a natural citizen. You can only naturalize them.
The Court's ruling that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen due to the circumstances of his birth means that the Court ruled Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen.
No it doesn't. That's what you are pushing us to accept, and I don't accept it. His family still owed allegiance to China, and China regarded him as one of theirs. China still does that today, in case you didn't know. They are very gene-o-centric.
They were quite explicit about it:
They were quite explicit in ommitting the words "natural born". We cannot believe this is an accident.
If they believed as you claim, they would have just said so. That they refrained from making that specific declaration indicates that they didn't consider it appropriate.
People like Diogenes and Kerchner and other two-citizen parent birthers, are mentally ill. I think that that maybe they are a subset of what are called “vexatious litigants”, about which much is written in law journals and psychiatric journals. Once they get a notion in their head, like the earth is flat, or sovereign citizens, for example, it is well-nigh impossible to get them to see reason. Here, with this issue, silly little clumps of people have elevated a book on International Law, to a status above the Constitution. Even though its author, Vattel, clearly stated that some countries, like England, bestowed citizenship by place of birth.
Go figure. They are the equivalents of wokesters, who are convinced that life in the hood sucks because of 1619, not because of bad choices and high illegitimate birth rates.
This may also be a result of some offshoot of autism - because people on the autism spectrum, like Great Thunberg, get an idea in their head, and there is not turning them away from it, no matter how much contrary information they receive.
I am kind of sadistic, and I enjoy watching them run around like monkeys, spewing all kinds of silly quasi-legal nonsense and babble. My BFF did a website to address their craziness:
https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/
I have to admit, it is a hilarious website.