He owes nothing to Canada that cannot be repaid with an upraised middle finger. And, being a brilliant legal scholar, he knows it, even if ignoramuses posting do not.
But there is the problem with your theory. We are not ignoramuses. We likely know more about this topic than do most constitutional scholars and the evidence we have uncovered keeps contradicting the arguments that our "betters" make.
Most of these modern day people keep citing this or that court, all of which simply bow to a precedent they insist on interpreting in an overly broad manner. Looking at what the founders and the Delegates wrote, you come away with a very different understanding that that derived from Wong Kim Ark.