For the record the Supreme Court ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark was a 6-2 decision with Justice Joseph McKenna not taking part in the case or the ruling.
While Justice Gray did write the majority opinion, he was joined by 5 other Justices.
2nd, this has to do with Gray reversing his own deciding opinion from the 1884 Elk case wherein he(Gray) & the court unanimously(including the dissenters) determined “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean complete & total allegiance, locally as well as politically, to the US. Complete allegiance as in “not owing allegiance to any foreign nation aka foreign citizenship/subjectship as Obama himself claims to have had at birth. The court determined that US Citizenship is something that could ONLY be done by consent either personally or through the tacit consent of the parent(s)/guardian(s) acting on behalf of the child. Parent(s)/guardian(s) who themselves were subject to the US politically and who held the right under US law to act politically for the child.
3rd, Gray stated in his opinion that Wong was AS MUCH a citizen as a natural born citizen. If he meant that birthright subjectship was equivalent to NBC he would have stated that Wong WAS a natural born citizen. But he didn't did he?
Now, move along troll. Your redundancy is getting annoying and this is too important to waste anymore time on your ignorant arse.