Replies

The lawyer contends that the results of Wong Kim Ark, say that even if he was born in the US, he is not a US citizen (Natural Born), even tho he was born in SF. His parents were not US citizens. Yet the supreme court says he is a citizen because he was born in SF.

That's why I think that the lawyer(s) contending that ...
(a) Wong Kim Ark supports their NBC/two-citizen parents argument; or that
(b) Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant to their argument; or that
(c) Wong Kim Ark does not hurt their argument
.... are wrong.

I think Wong Kim Ark clearly stands for the proposition that a child born in the United States is a citizen -- a native born citizen aka natural born citizen of the US, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.

I think Wong Kim Ark clearly stands for the proposition that a child born in the United States is a citizen

Correct, the court did make that determination.

-- a native born citizen aka natural born citizen of the US, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.

Wrong. There is a clear distinction made in Wong Kim Ark, between a child born here of a resident alien, and the natural-born child of citizens. It is clear that a child born here of a resident alien is a citizen. But, it is also clear that such a child is not natural-born.

You're misconstruing citizenship with natural born citizenship. The two are not the same, under the Constitution. The rights and duties of all citizens are the same, except as the Constitution makes a distinction, whether they're newly minted and naturalized, or whether they're descended from nothing but natural born citizens all the way back to the first citizens of this country under the grandfather clause.

The only time the Constitution makes a distinction is regarding eligibility for the office of President.

So, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, just as much of a citizen as the natural-born child of citizens.

To paraphrase, the legal status that Wong Kim Ark had in common with natural born citizens was citizenship, not being natural born.