Has anyone brought Gray's limiting statement ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to their attention?
Cite where a judge has discussed that even though Gray tells us that the effect of the ruling is limited to the question presented to the court and the agreed upon facts, that they have the authority to ignore the limitations Gray specifically sets.
I have not read every brief/opinion/order to know which ones discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in US v Wong Kim Ark.
If you haven’t read the complete “Natural Born Citizen” section in Ankeny v Daniels, you should. It seems to have made sense to subsequent judges looking into this issue since it keeps being cited over and over.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf. [the discussion begins on page ten of the court’s opinion]
I have no knowledge of any lawsuit that has focused on “permanent domicile” as a prerequisite for the child born in the US of alien parents.
However the holding in US v.Wong Kim Ark also notes: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and TEMPORARY, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”
Since Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China, never to return to the US, the permanence of their domiciliary status was open to question. The reason that Wong Kim Ark was originally barred from reentry into the United States is because he had gone to China to visit his parents.