Replies

Did the case in question explicitly state that it chose the word “native” instead of “natural” for specific reasons?...

“You doubt it”

LOL!

Here what the case says in quotes:

"Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts in foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco of California and the United States of America, and was and is a laborer

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco, in the state of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China. They were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and are still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco. They continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China; and, during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.

Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California, within the United States and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence; n d neither he, nor his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [169 U.S. 649, 653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about 17 years of age) he departed for China, on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about 21 years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States; and he did return thereto, by sea, in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission, upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of congress known as the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts,' prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him....."

-end of excerpt-

After the facts of the case presented by Justice Gray, he delivers the majority opinion starting at Roman numeral I. Wong is never mentioned in his majority opinion of the court until he gives his disposition at the end of his writings, in Roman numeral VII. The only sentence that specifically mentions Wong Kim Ark as “native born citizen” is the one in bold above, in the fact section.

In Justice Grays opinion, it is full of historical details in the minutia; acts, doctrines, old statutes, and cases to the point of ad nauseum. He gives a dissertation on allegiances and the types of citizens from old Europe to the Emperor of China until he gets to section IV. Where he goes onto explain native-born citizens (of old France) who are “independently of the origin of the father and mother, and of their domicile”. This is the part of his opinion where judge Gray applied the law to Wong vs. U.S. in the case.

Wong Kim Ark vs. U.S. has nothing to do with answering the question who can be a "natural born citizen" What it does is establish who can be a "native-born citizen" by virtue of being born in the United States. The opinion of the court is a narrow judgment.