“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’” From US vs Wong Kim Ark
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’” From US vs Wong Kim Ark
***
WHY do you INSIST on cheryy-picking ???
THAT is HISTORICAL data from Benny v. O’Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40.
THAT case was argued THREE years PRIOR to Ark AND IS NOT THE OPINION OF SCOTUS IN THIS CASE.
THE OPINION COMES AT THE END OF THE DECISION TEXT AND STATES “CITIZEN” NOT “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
AND, IF YOU INSIST ON CHERRY-PICKING ...
From the Ark case:
2 Kent Com. 258, note.
” ... The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,
(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)
such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.
P. 20.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666] ...”
THIS passage CLEARLY indicates that there is a DISTINCTION between a child “CITIZEN” born of ALIEN parents and a “NATURAL-BORN” child of a citizen ...
WHY do you think the distinction was specified ???