Wong Kim Ark does not present a problem from my perspective. It only presents a problem from the perspective of those who argue that it is the salient precedent.
You know, like Nero Germanicus. For him, it is a real problem. But I have faith that he will be able to live with the cognitive dissonance such a conundrum presents. He's always managed to do it before.
Lawyer types never seem to have a problem with claiming to simultaneously believe two different and contradictory things.
At any time from 1898 until today, Congress could pass legislation that renders the decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark moot or that further clarifies the holding in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark
The U.S. government’s attorneys argued in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark:
“The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.”
The federal government attorneys went on to argue: “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?”
And finally the government argued: “To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the “political jurisdiction” thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”
The Supreme Court ruled against the government’s position 6 to 2 and for Wong Kim Ark’s position.
How the current Supreme Court might rule on the circumstances of Senator Cruz’s birth in Canada to one U.S. citizen parent and an alien father and what role the holding in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark might play in their decision remains to be seen.
“You know, like Nero Germanicus. For him, it is a real problem. But I have faith that he will be able to live with the cognitive dissonance such a conundrum presents. He’s always managed to do it before.”
There is no cognitive dissonance on my part concerning those two categories of writings in an opinion.