Yes, and the entire rationale of his CITIZENSHIP stemmed from the fact of his qualifying to be a NATURAL BORN citizen.
In other words, they declared him to be a CITIZEN, at the very end, because they had FIRST found him to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN during the course of their deliberations.
This is not unclear. It is QUITE CLEAR to anyone who actually understands the case.
It was even clear to the minority, who objected that the ruling would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to run for President.
It is not denied by any competent legal authority. It is the reason why Obama was ruled by multiple courts to be a natural born citizen. It is the reason why the US Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to even LOOK at appeals from ANY of those cases.
It is only denied by those who desperately want it not to be true, by those who really aren't acquainted with or misunderstand the facts and the law, and by those who have consumed massive amounts of mind-altering drugs.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN [THE UNITED STATES] [which most definitely included Wong Kim Ark] IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR [which he wasn't,] OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE [which he wasn't,] OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN [which he wasn't.]
If fact this is your opinion.
In fact this is the decision:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
By the way, a little tip for you: insults do not strengthen your argument.
TTYL I've got things to do this evening.
Ummm, the "minority" didn't object that the ruling would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to run for president. The dissent agreed with the majority that NBCs are those persons born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It also agreed that persons born in the country to resident aliens could be citizens, but not Ark, because it was specifically forbidden by a treaty with China of which his parents were subjects. Here's where the dissent shows how it agrees on defining the latter class of citizenship:
is it not the proper construction that all persons born in the United States of parents permanently residing here and susceptible of becoming citizens, and not prevented therefrom by treaty or statute, are citizens
- - -
the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens
I’ve read the case and you’re a troll, full of crapola.
In other words, you’re advocating that the status of the parents of a native born child, who’s parents are Ambassadors for a foreign entity and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., is considered when determining the natural born citizenship status of the child.
Yet, the status of the Obama’s parents cannot be considered because he is native born.
This is an example of hypocrisy. According to OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers, SCOTUS is fine with considering the status of the parents on some occassions and ignoring the status of the parents on other occassions when it concerns natural born citizenship status.