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.
Oh good Lord! Lets try it again. ( and please try to keep up with the program this time. bzzzz.....bzzzz)
From Wong, the very last part of the case:
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,” and
any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.
Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and
that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.
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. “
Now there is a reason why this is phrased the way that it is. That is because of the way appeals are presented. They are presented in very strict and formal ways via “issues.”
But look at the last sentence:
“For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Now, lets look at the first “clause” of the last sentence:
“For the reasons above stated”
Now, what are the “reasons above stated”. It is all that stuff from older cases and cites to English common law that the Wong Court spent pages and pages and pages going through. That is how they got to the holding.
Look at the big blurb above and you will note that there is nary a “reason” to be found in it. Its pretty much conclusions. You see, the “reasons” are “above” in the Opinion. It is all that stuff you keep trying to ignore.
And, by doing this, that is going through all this “reasoning” the Womg Court answered a much bigger question than what was presented for review. That is why Wong is still cited and has been cited in over 1,000 cases. Cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with Chinese permanent residents, blah blah blah blah.
Do you doubt me? Do you think I am just making this up? Do you think I am just fibbing to you? Try this 2009 case that I have tendered to you on numerous occasions. It cites Wong! Wong! Wong! Wong! And there ain’t a Chinaman in the Indiana case.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy, who says you are missing the forest because your eyes are closed.
Let’s try another logical analogy:
Deer Bob and Ted —The Car Guys
How are you? Fine I hope. I have this 1985 Dodge truck with a 318. The darn thing won’t start on cold mornings like the choke ain’t kicking in. How do I fix this?
Sincerely,
Patlin.
Deer Patlin,
We accepted your question about the 1985 Dodge and here we go:
(Now pretend that Bob and Ted write about 20+ pages on carburators, for Fords, Chevys, Dodges, American Motors, and gives diagrams, and talks about clogged jets, bad floats, junk in the fuel line, junk in the gas filter, the mixture screws, and vaccum hoses, and tune ups)
So, Patlin, in answer to your question, just spray a little WD40 on the springie thingie and it should start easier.
Very truly yours,
Bob and Ted
Now, do you think the only part of Bob and Teds response is the last part to you? I guess you could. But other people would save the whole thing so they could try to figure out why their 1985 Ford Bronco with the 300 inch 6 ain’t starting. You might also, if something else goes wrong.
Wong answered a whole lot of questions en route to deciding about Wong, and I have shown you that.
parsy, the Drone with the Dodge