The Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649 (1898))the court used the term "natural-born citizen" seven times.<quoted text>
Exactly where in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark use the words "Natural Born Citizen"?
Your link must be taken from the actual Supreme Court Decision!
1. The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." Id at 654
2...."no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." Id at 654
3. In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Id at 655
4. In Dred Scott v. Sandford,(1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language,`a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Id at 662
5. In United States v. Rhodes,(1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Id at 662
6. In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been esident in the United States. Id at 672-673
7. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Id at 680
By the way, the dissent used the term "natural-born citizen" six times.
anything else you like to add?