Here's a bit more from the majority decision that supports jus soli because of our heritage of English common law:
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, and 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.
The Court fully held that just soli held well after the Declaration of Independence and prevailed under the constitution as originally established. Meaning since the founding of these United States.
The Ark case is the definitive case relating to natural born citizenship via jus soli and it is unequivocal, by the statement above of the court: from the English common law foundations of the Nation, natural born citizenship is a function of birthplace, and that held continuously from the colonies through the Declaration of Independence, the Revolution, and the later writing and passage of the constitution.
APPARENTLY, you do not know how to read a SCOTUS opinion ...
It begins with a question, continues with DICTA, and ends with the decision. The only two parts that are relevant are the question and the decision. The dicta is an explanation of the reasoning AND NOT the decision.
DICTA: Opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in court's opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of author of opinion and NOT binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. State ex rel. Foster v. Naftalin 246 Minn. 181, 74 N.W.2d 249.
The Ark case could, should, and was decided SOLELY on the basis of the 14th Amendment. Justice Horace Gray wrote the opinion, so the dicta reflects HIS opinion. Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur who, himself, had questions about his eligibility to hold the office of President.
The dicta concerning English Common Law he included in the opinion was ENTIRELY irrelevant to the disposition of the case. The case hinged upon birth within the United States, as per the 14th Amendment, and the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Since Ark [and his parents] spent most of their lives in the United States [until his parents returned to China in their old age] and the fact that Ark remained a resident of the United States, the jurisdictional issue was settled.
So, why did Gray include the references to English Common Law? Who knows - perhaps he was a friend of Arthur and wanted to help him out by trying to squash the questions of his eligibility [reputation-wise]. BTW, Gray bastardized and even flat-out lied concerning the meanings some of the citations in his dicta.
But more importantly, why DIDN'T Gray declare Ark to be a "natural born citizen" instead of just declaring him to be a "citizen"? He CLEARLY thought that Ark was natural-born.
The reason is that the other justices that formed the majority in Ark WERE able to declare him a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment, but WERE NOT willing to declare him "natural-born". So, for Gray, half a loaf was better than none ...
FINALLY, if Ark DID settle the "natural-born citizen" question, WHY hasn't it been cited as precedent under the stare decisis doctrine [the doctrine of precedence]? The reason is that Ark DID NOT decide the issue.
Now, if you want to debate the point(s) with me concerning English Common Law, you better do A LOT of reading first [I have]. You CANNOT trust the dicta in the Ark opinion, so I suggest that you read Calvin's Case, Dicey, the De Natis Ultra Mare Act [1351], Cowell's legal definition [1701], the Act of Settlement, the Laws of William I, and the British Nationality Act of 1730, to name a few.
Sorry the interpretation is wrong!!! If that was the case, then why aren’t Americans still considered British? They fought a freaking war to break the chains of Britian. Why then are only those born before the signing of the Constitution exempt from the citizen clause?
Also, the Supreme Court is far from right on many issues. But here is a question for you........No where in the Constitution does it say that there should be a Separation of Church and State. That was taken from a letter from Benjamin Franklin.....They can decide law on one letter yet they ignore MANY letter referring to Natural Born Citizen!