Wrong.
Gosh. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Have you never even read US v. Wong Kim Ark?
Gosh.
All aliens on English soil, with the permission of the King, were in “actual obedience” to the King.
And their children, born on English soil, were natural born subjects.
And as the Court in Wong said: The same rule ALWAYS applied. First in England, then in the Colonies, and then in the United States after independence.
The child born within the country, of alien parents, was a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT for as long as we used the word “subject,” and then when we changed “subject” to “citizen,” that child then became a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The Supreme Court is absolutely clear about this.
This argument is moot anyway. Two Presidents thus far, Obama and Arthur, have not met this definition of “natural born citizen.”
No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.
Gosh. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If it is wrong, then why are the parents mentioned at all? It serves no purpose to mention parents if loyal parents are irrelevant to the result. Yet they are not only mentioned, they are the FIRST aspect which is mentioned.
So you are trying to tell me that there is no difference whatsoever between loyal British subject parents, and Foreigner parents who just happen to be in England at the time? That is nonsensical.
If you will go to the trouble to read further into that book, you will discover English law does not allow Inheritance from Foreign Parents. Foreign Parents may buy land, but when they die, the land may not go to their Children, it goes back to the King.
Have you never even read US v. Wong Kim Ark?
Yup, plenty of times. It's rather boring, and sheds no light on the issue. Again, the words "natural born" are conspicuously absent from the ruling. Apart from that, Wong Kim Ark has no effect on what is the meaning of English law.
And as the Court in Wong said: The same rule ALWAYS applied. First in England, then in the Colonies, and then in the United States after independence.
And have you ever read a criticism of Wong Kim Ark? I have, and among other things, they completely missed the War of 1812, about which who is British and Who is American was a central aspect of the conflict. The reason they left the War of 1812 out, is because it did not fit the decision at which they were trying to arrive.
The child born within the country, of alien parents, was a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT for as long as we used the word “subject,” and then when we changed “subject” to “citizen,” that child then became a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Unless his father was an Indian. And Unless his father was a slave. And Unless his father was a British Loyalist. And unless his father was a member of a foreign Ambassadorial staff. The fact that your bedrock theory is contradicted by so many examples of exceptions ought to be a clue to you that your theory is in fact wrong.
If you were reasonable, these exceptions would give you pause, because who could suggest this was a reasonable method of determining citizenship if it has so many holes in it? (Not to mention birth tourism and anchor babies.)
You're problem is that you regard the Wong court as the sole determining authority. I regard them as a court that wanted a certain result, and fumbled enough legal crappola together to get the result they wanted.
Examples include the recent ObamaCare ruling, Roe v Wade, Kelo, etc.
Now you might think this is a recent phenomena that is the result of Roosevelt and Truman's long years of stacking the court with reliable Liberals, but this is not the case. Ideology has ALWAYS played a role in how the courts decide issues.
I suspect that this is the case with the Wong Kim Ark decision, and early research into the judges who rendered the decision seems to support this. I'm going to delve deeper into this aspect, and i'll let you know what I find.