“It’s talking about a separate and generic principle of “citizenship by birth.”
It is talking about “the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - discussed in length in the first half of the decision.
“The only time the court talks about the NBC clause is to explain how it is not defined by the 14th amendment and that it is defined by birth in the country to citizen parents.”
You can go on claiming that, and you can go on losing every case brought to court. Not because the world is a giant conspiracy, but because you are factually wrong. They spent half the decision discussing the meaning of NBC: “the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”, or as they say elsewhere:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
Repeating for emphasis: “...and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
It really helps if you think these things through before you post. This was a very long decision. The court knew this was not a strong legal foundation to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen, else there wouldn't be a second half to the decision, especially with the parts that separately define NBC as birth in the country to citizen parents.
y spent half the decision discussing the meaning of NBC: “the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”, or as they say elsewhere:
Nothing in what you quotes says ANYTHING about the meaning of NBC. Sorry, but it just isn't there. An eye doctor or shrink might help you with this problem of seeing things.
Repeating for emphasis: “...and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
It's a meaningless phrase. The court never uses this to define NBC, and the court contradicts itself because the part that "prevailed" only applied to free white people. So much for a prevailing law. Meanwhile, when it actually came to a specific definition of NBC, the Ark court affirmed Minor's definition: "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens" These were the natural-born citizens. And from that point forward, the term is never used again and it is obviously never applied to Wong Kim Ark. Another Fogger lie is defeated.