Not that it will make a dent in you, but for others, who passed Reading, back in Elementary School, this is how Wong Kim Ark was applied:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief (Gee, I wonder why???); they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120.”
FWIW, “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” is a polite way to phrase it. The Court could have said it more bluntly, to wit: “The Plaintiffs pulled some crap out of their a$$es, and we do not have to pretend that it does not stink.”
Thanks to my BFF, who roused from her nap with kittens long enough to tell me where to look!
https://casetext.com/case/ankeny-v-governor-of-state-of-indiana
Think about that term, “non-factual assertions”, okay?
That’s from an Indiana court that got it wrong.
Courts often get it wrong.