That is just an artifact of perception. Since I can look at the evidence and also follow their reasoning, when the court deviates from what is correct, I can point out where they went wrong.
In Wong Kim Ark they made two mistakes, and people such as yourself have taken their errors and made even further mistakes.
The Mistakes the court made in the Wong Kim Ark decision were:
1. Not using the evidence of the War of 1812 to dismiss English Common law as the basis for American Federal Citizenship, and:
2. Ignoring the correct meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as explained in the debates.
These are obvious glaring errors in the Court's decision making process, and beyond that, people such as yourself have misconstrued their faulty decision that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen with the notion that anyone born here legally or illegally is also a citizen. You further make the mistake of arguing that being born a "citizen" is the exact same thing as being a "natural born citizen." (or as I like to clarify, born as a "Natural citizen."
Your argument consists of errors compounded on top of other errors.
It also forces you to discount what Senator Trumbull said about his original intent on "owing allegiance" and that even foreign diplomats owe a type of allegiance. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, what matters to current eligibility is what the law is currently held to be.
Well, Senator Howard said this when he introduced the Amendment:
“The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Trumbell (who cosponsored the Amendment) said:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
The court INTENTIONALLY ignored this. As justice Gray said:
"Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words...
And then the silly bastard does exactly what he says cannot be done. He admits into his consideration the debates in Congress in order to clarify his opinion.
Continuing..."But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.
Well which is it? Do we use the Debates in Congress or don't we? Looks like to me he uses them when it suits him, and ignores them when it does not.
Bad Judge! Bad bad Judge! (hitting him across the nose with a metaphorical newspaper.)
How wonderful! This means we have no need of courts henceforth, since you always know what is correct, despite not being a lawyer! [I respect your research, in this instance I must say you are taking your faith in your abilities too far. :)] Did you ever campaign against this decision you feel is so misguided before 2007?
In Wong Kim Ark they made two mistakes, and people such as yourself have taken their errors and made even further mistakes. The Mistakes the court made in the Wong Kim Ark decision were: :
:1. Not using the evidence of the War of 1812 to dismiss English Common law as the basis for American Federal Citizenship, and:
Oh dear. I don’t know how to let you down gently, but starting very early in our history the issue of voluntary expatriation was discussed; and the opinions varied (even after the war of 1812.) It was seen as separate issue from jus soli. For instance, Chancellor Kent’s commentaries (1826)
the principle which has been declared in some of our state constitutions, that the citizens have a natural and inherent right to emigrate, goes far towards a renunciation of the doctrine of the English common law, as being repugnant to the natural liberty of mankind, provided we are to consider emigration and expatriation, as words intended in those cases to be of synonymous import. But the allegiance of our citizens is due, not only to the local government under which they reside, but primarily to the government of the United States; and the doctrine of final and absolute expatriation requires to be defined with precision, and to be subjected to certain established limitations, before it can be admitted into our jurisprudence, as a safe and practicable principle, or laid down broadly as a wise and salutary rule of national policy. The question has been frequently discussed in the courts of the United States, but it remains still to be definitively settled by judicial decision.Note that Kent mentioned no such uncertainties when it came to “natural born””
'And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the king, and under the king's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.' "Subject' and 'citizen' are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term 'citizen' seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, 'subjects,' for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.'Justice Gray quoted this in WKA. I think Justice Gray was a little more familiar with the issues than many posters here. (And I will include myself).
You may see also Talbot v Jansen. 1795
In some instances, even in time of war, expatriation may fairly be permitted. It ought not then to be restrained. …Admitting he had a right to expatriate himself, without any law prescribing the method of his doing so, we surely must have some evidence that he had done itThis was a distinct and acknowledged divergence from the English common law. Our Founders did not throw the baby out with the bathwater – they kept the parts of common law they liked. After some initial doubt, courts and legislators acknowledged the right of voluntary expatriation, and in 1868 Congress passed the Expatriation Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
2. Ignoring the correct meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as explained in the debates.
You appear to be ignoring Senator Trumbull’s statement on “subject to the jurisdiction of” which I provided for you in post #168. I’ll repeat for you:
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction who are subject to our laws who we think of making citizens.Jurisdiction means “subject to our laws.” Diplomats were not “subject to our laws.” Indians were mostly outside the jurisdiction of our laws, because they were held to be under Tribal authority akin to living in a sovereign foreign nation even while within US borders.
These are obvious glaring errors in the Court's decision making process, and beyond that, people such as yourself have misconstrued their faulty decision that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen with the notion that anyone born here legally or illegally is also a citizen.
Oh? I didn’t realize 0bama’s parents were illegals. You have proof?
You further make the mistake of arguing that being born a "citizen" is the exact same thing as being a "natural born citizen." (or as I like to clarify, born as a "Natural citizen." Your argument consists of errors compounded on top of other errors.
Funny, I keep showing you errors, such as the pages on English law you posted which did not in any way support your point. Although you sometimes acknowledge error (thank you!), many times you don’t, merely drop it, and then bring it back up months later as if it was never debunked.
Well, Senator Howard said this when he introduced the Amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
And this simply means what I have been saying all along – families of diplomats are aliens and remain aliens. They do not become natural born citizens despite being born in the US.
As justice Gray said: "Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words... And then the silly bastard does exactly what he says cannot be done. He admits into his consideration the debates in Congress in order to clarify his opinion.
Insults because you disagree? Not you, too!
Well which is it? Do we use the Debates in Congress or don't we? Looks like to me he uses them when it suits him, and ignores them when it does not. Bad Judge! Bad bad Judge! (hitting him across the nose with a metaphorical newspaper.)
Do you see yourself and your co-NBC’ers in that mirror? Perhaps you should hold on to that newspaper!