Here’s the relevant article at Donofrio’s blog.
Here’s his conclusion (from the above-referenced article) regarding Justice Gray’s majority opinion:
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“...and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen...”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
~Leo Donofrio
“...and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen...”Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
Donofrio is emphasizing the wrong part. The Justice compares two children who differ with respect to the citizenship of the parents, because that's the issue he's explaining. His point though is *what they have in common*, despite parentage, and what they have in commmon is that one is "as much a citizen" as citizen as the other.
Donofrio's misreading emphasizes the non-essential part of the sentence, and to believe that his reading is somehow legal he has to believe that this one sentence fragment somehow overrules the rest of Wong where it clearly says otherwise.
Others have already posted excerpts so I won't do it again, but Wong leaves no doubt that a person born in the US is a "natural born" citizen.
“strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
What part of “that issue is a natural-born subject” are you having problems with?
My view of the law is that there are two and only two types of US citizenship, natural born or naturalized. Justice Scalia agrees with this view, and he is a conservative and a Constitutional sholar.
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).