[Michael.SF.]

I believe that the case actually upheld the concept of ‘jus soli’ (citizenship based on place of birth). The term ‘Native born’ is an appropriate descriptor for jus soli. Natural born is not specifically mentioned in the decision, as I recall.

There are many legal scholars who agree with your position, conversely there are also many who agree with mine. This question will only be resolved by SCOTUS.

[4Zoltan]

In 1898 when the Wong case was decided, it was assumed it made him eligible to be president.

For example, the Government’s appellant brief specifically said the lower district court erred when it ruled Wong a “natural born citizen.” But the district court judge never used that term. Like Justice Gray, he ruled Wong a citizen of the United States.

The Chief Justice dissented and said the majority opinion was based on the English Common Law rule and made children born in the US to Chinese parents eligible to be president.

William Dameron Guthrie, a prominent lawyer who had argued that income taxes were unconstitutional before the same Supreme Court, wrote that the majority’s opinion made children born in the United States to Chinese parents eligible to be President.

Government Appellant brief:

http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/AppellantsBrief.pdf

Chief Justice Fuller dissenting opinion:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

William Dameron Guthrie (Comment on Wong Kim Ark appears on page 57):

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lectures_on_the_Fourteenth_Article_of_Am/4sUlAAAAMAAJ?hl=en-us&kptab=editions&gbpv=1&bsq=Wong