Because Wong was ruled a citizen because he was born here. The language in the case, as partially posted at 1887, clearly indicates that: born here=citizen=natural born citizen.
Who cares about Chinese citizenship. Wong court said expatriation was a right. Obvious that Wong, and Obama have claimed their American citizen rights.
parsy
When did your ‘WON’ go before the Brits and formally renounce & when did he formally go before the US State Dept & formally prove his renunciation, thereby leaving him with a ‘singular’ citizenship per US law.
no thats wrong.
born in country=citizen=natural born subject
Thats the UK system, any citizen can be Prime Minster. I should know I live here.
You cant say because Wong Kim Ark quotes UK common law in a cite that the US suddenly adopted UK common law.
There is no Common Law in the US.
There is the US constitution and statute law.
The US constitution says natural born citizen not natural born subject. You must look backwards for the definition, not forwards, unless the US supreme court defines Article II NBC *exactly and specifically*.
Its meaningless to quote a case about the hapless Kim Wong Ark, which is about making the man an exception to the chinese exclusion laws. It made him a citizen *not* a natural born citizen.