According to the facts of the case, it wasn't open to question. Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. when their son was born in 1873. They raised him in the U.S. and didn't return to China until 1890. This is a known fact to all parties of the case; the info is contained in the case syllabus. Given that, the parties agreed upon the fact that his parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth. Gray specifically states that his ruling is based upon that and the other facts agreed upon by the parties.
Case Syllabus:
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark - Syllabus
That said, given the information we now have on Hawaii and Alaska being the only two states in which birthright citizenship is not predicated on the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement, it would appear that if Obama was born in Hawaii as presented, he is a U.S. citizen.
The question that remains, though, is if a born British citizen is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Given our Founding Fathers' break from British alliegance, I am quite sure they never intended such to be the case.
So a permanently domiciled in the US alien couple can return “home” to the nation where they are citizens and their American born child remains a Citizen of the United States at birth. As long as they were permanently domiciled when the child was born.
I’ve got it now.
New arguments for plaintiffs to try to see if they have any more success with Triers of Fact than the old arguments.