*NOTE: I capitalized the "A" because the Obot Wiggins gave me guff when I was misspelled his name as "Grey."
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
Conclusion
"Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in
reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong
Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny
the acts of Congress in order to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine while rendering unethical
and legally unsound rulings."
Here he is right on the money.
They won’t have to re-read it. The decision would be overturned on appeal. I have that from a constitutional lawyer. No EggieWiggie I am not going to reveal his name.
This is from my own research paper:
To date, the Supreme Court of the United States has taken several citizenship cases brought to it. In the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, Wong was the son of two Chinese immigrants . He was born in the United States in California, and had gone to China twice for short visits. Upon return to the U.S. in 1895 was denied permission to enter the country by Customs, which stated that he was not a citizen. Wong won his case; the court determined that he was a citizen, but did not state that he was a natural born citizen. As his parents were not citizens, the son could not inherit natural born status from them. He was a citizen by virtue of the fact he was born in California and for no other reason. This case did not specifically define “natural born citizen” directly, but made the direct distinction between the statuses of the two. In fact, Justice Gray in the decision actually quotes part of the decision in Minor v. Happersett, decided in 1875 in the Decision:
“‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’”