True. You are correct. That is why Wong was a citizen. His parents were here and
“owe[d] to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens.”
That is what takes them out of the “ambassador” exceptions——and what makes their bouncing baby Wong, AN NBC!
All you are doing is driving nails in your own foot. You are stuck. You have the language right. You get it. NOW, put it into context with Wong. That allegiance and obedience, NO MATTER HOW SHORT IN DURATION are enough to make little NBCs!!!!
parsy, the hungry Drone who is wolfing down his salad....
You leave out the fact that his allegiance was local & temporary until he consented to the sovereign all allegiance & political ties to China. He owed no allegiance to the the US sovereign as a citizen at birth, he was merely obligated to an obedience to the laws of the government.
From the Carlisle case that the DRONES like to dismiss:
In the case of Thrasher, a citizen of the United States resident in Cuba, who complained of injuries
Page 83 U. S. 155
suffered from the government of that island, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of state, made, in 1851, a report to the President in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives in which he said:
“Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”
And again:
“Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=2191#2191
‘Stuck on Stupid’ is the DRONE mantra because they base their entire argument on this case when in reality, it clearly shows why Grey only decalred WKA to be a citizen, not a ‘natural born citizen’.
1898 Holding in WKA, born to aliens: 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.
1939 Holding in Elg, born to naturalized citizens: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.
The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
Both born on US soil, but the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ was only brought forward in one of the ‘holdings’ of these 2 cases. It was only held up in the case of the child born to 2 citizen parents.