For those that still can’t comprehend that you could possibly be wrong about Wong Kim Ark...do this...
Read the lower case. Read the brief from The United States of America.
Now read the case with objective eyes and notice all the discussion of Natural Born Citizen.
Then read Fuller’s dissent.
Maybe your eyes will be opened about what was being decided in this case.
The United States of America appealed a lower court decision that Ark was a natural born citizen. They say it right in the brief.
I pointed out to "SometimesLurker" that All the people who created the 14th amendment were familiar with the term "natural born citizen" because it was cited in the debates on the Amendment. That they did not include the words "natural born" right before the word "citizen" was not an oversight or a mistake. It was explicitly left out because citizens created by the 14th amendment were NOT "natural born citizens".
Likewise, Justice Gray and the rest of SCOTUS were quite familiar with the term, and they did not leave it out of their ruling by accident or oversight. They declared Wong a citizen because he was a "citizen" under the 14th amendment. Had they decided that 14th amendment citizenship is the same thing as "natural born citizenship" they would have explicitly said so. The fact that they did not means they did not so intend that the one be considered the equal of the other. It would have cost them nothing to add two words to the decision. They did not do it.
Now you argue that because the term was used in the lower case, that it bound the decision in the upper case. I disagree. It is within the powers of the court to partially agree, or partially accept some aspect of a lower case while not granting acceptance of the whole.
They accepted the "citizen" part, but they tacitly did not accept the "natural born" part. Again, had they done so, the decision would have two additional words.
The fact that subsequent lawyers and authorities have interpreted it that way is just the result of a fault in their understanding.