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.
Yes. They restated the question put before the Court. Then they stated that the answer to the question is “yes.”
This is normal behavior.
And the core reasoning of the case is also legally binding precedent, along with that final “yes” to whatever the original question was.
There’s nothing difficult about it at all.
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there are only two types of American citizens: born citizens (same as natural born) and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens can’t.
Wong Kim Ark could not be a naturalized citizen due to the Chinese Exclusion Act in force at that time.
The US government’s attorneys were certin that they were dealing with a natural born citizen question. In their respondent’s brief for the Supreme Court, they wrote: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA. (See page 34 of the original document)