They did no such thing. They came to the conclusion that he was a citizen at birth. Here is the question, followed by the conclusion: First the question:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
And the conclusion:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.
You'll not see "Natural Born Citizen" in either of those. Everything in between is dicta.
"Natural-born" or "natural born" only appear in conjunction with "subject", except in quotes or references to "Minor v. Happersett" which repeats the Vattel defintion of Natural Born citizen, and in the quote, or discussion of it, from Binny, which distingues between "citizen child of an alien born in the country" and "natural born citizen".
There’s dicta, and there’s dicta. Some dicta is more relevant than others. Frankly, dicta is usually on issues NOT before the Court.
If a court relies on language from a treatise, the “treatise itself” doesn’t magically become law. BUT SINCE THE COURT RELIED ON THE LANGUAGE that line of reasoning is now relevant. It is likely to be repeated in subsequent affirming decisions.
Now here is where things get a little more complex. Some of the stuff the Wong Court relied on were PRIOR ENGLISH CASES. Technically, there is no FEDERAL COMMON LAW, but most states had “reception statutes” which brought English ccommon law into their own state law.
Soooo, you could have a citizenship case on the state level that is based on English common law, and if that particular case is relied on in a Federal case, its gets a little blurry. We ain’t necessarily bound at the federal level, but could be at the state level. But at the federal level, you still have the fact that the court “looked with favor” upon the reasoning.
So, in a transmogratory sort of way, while the English case at the federal level isn’t binding, its language kinda is. Its been sorta naturalized in a way.
Read the Indiana case —pages 13-18:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
See that old English stuff in there! See how its being cited back to both Wong and England.......
parsy, who says there is a lot in Wong, the Birthers and Vattel Groupies are missing
Let me add some more to what I said so you will know I am being honest. This is from the November 2009 Indiana case, I think I gave you the cite to. The Birthers made their arguments. The Court sent them packing, to wit:
The Birther’s Argument (based on Vattel and the usual speeches):
Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)
(Now for the next 5 plus pages, the Court lets them know all about WONG. A string of cases and cites from Wong running all the way back to 1608 England!)
Now the Court is ready to rule:
The Court’s Smackdown of the Birthers : ( Short answer: No, there isn’t!) The longer answer:
Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)
That’s pretty straightforward. The Birthers got one thing right-—the thinking of MOST PEOPLE is that there isn’t a difference.
And the link, in case I forgot it before:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy, who hopes this helps