The Question in "Wong Kim Ark":
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
The judgement in "Wong Kim Ark":
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Pretty much everything in between is dicta. The case concerned citizenship, not natural born citizenship. It was decided on the basis of the 14th amendment. It does not say that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen, for that was not the question before the court, merely that he was a citizen.
That said, part of that dicta quotes the following statement:
"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."
Thus making a distinction between "child of an alien" "born in the country", and a the "natural born child of a citizen", but states that both are just as much citizens. "That principal" being birth in the country. The conclusion is that the author at least thought that there is a distinction between "citizen born in the country" and "natural born citizen", one being a subset of the other. That quote comes from a paper written in 1853. Others quoted in the dicta indicate that natural born subject and natural born citizen are the same thing, with US Citizens being subjects of the government. Well, I'm no subject of any King, Shah, Czar or President.
The purpose of the NBC clause in the Constitution was not to protect any individual right, it was to protect the country from foreign influence. Someone with a foreign national parent would certainly be subject to such influence.
It's a fine quote and all that, but the Supreme Court seems already to have dismissed it.
They've never been presented with a case where "natural born citizen" status was at issue.
There is one thing which really put the issue "over the top" for me. That is a little "thought experiment" of asking "would the founders have wanted the son of a European royal, though born in the US, to be eligible to be the commander in chief", the answer being Hell No! avoidance of foreign influence, especially that of foreign nobility, was the whole reason for the provision. And it still is.
GREAT Analysis!
The example of Obama is clearly the reason for the provision.
He has presented himself as a “World Citizen”. People who voted for him expressed joy over the fact that he was a multinational. This is Exactly why the provision was drafted. To exclude his kind.
We also have to be honest about this. He is in violation of our laws, and we are being damaged by his lack of loyalty to our nation. This is no longer a game. The damage is real. We are heading to 20 percent real unemployment. This is destroying peoples lives.
The sooner the man is removed, the better. The law must be enforced.
I won’t paste your excellent post concerning the Ark decision here - the question, finding, and decision.
But, see my post #204 - I wrote it as I was scrolling thru earlier posts ... did not see yours until later.
I guess great minds think alike !!!