Which is what you've said every time when a court decision doesn't say what you want. It also forces you to discount what Senator Trumbull said about his original intent on "owing allegiance" and that even foreign diplomats owe a type of allegiance. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, what matters to current eligibility is what the law is currently held to be.
That is just an artifact of perception. Since I can look at the evidence and also follow their reasoning, when the court deviates from what is correct, I can point out where they went wrong.
In Wong Kim Ark they made two mistakes, and people such as yourself have taken their errors and made even further mistakes.
The Mistakes the court made in the Wong Kim Ark decision were:
1. Not using the evidence of the War of 1812 to dismiss English Common law as the basis for American Federal Citizenship, and:
2. Ignoring the correct meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as explained in the debates.
These are obvious glaring errors in the Court's decision making process, and beyond that, people such as yourself have misconstrued their faulty decision that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen with the notion that anyone born here legally or illegally is also a citizen. You further make the mistake of arguing that being born a "citizen" is the exact same thing as being a "natural born citizen." (or as I like to clarify, born as a "Natural citizen."
Your argument consists of errors compounded on top of other errors.
It also forces you to discount what Senator Trumbull said about his original intent on "owing allegiance" and that even foreign diplomats owe a type of allegiance. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, what matters to current eligibility is what the law is currently held to be.
Well, Senator Howard said this when he introduced the Amendment:
“The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Trumbell (who cosponsored the Amendment) said:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
The court INTENTIONALLY ignored this. As justice Gray said:
"Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words...
And then the silly bastard does exactly what he says cannot be done. He admits into his consideration the debates in Congress in order to clarify his opinion.
Continuing..."But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.
Well which is it? Do we use the Debates in Congress or don't we? Looks like to me he uses them when it suits him, and ignores them when it does not.
Bad Judge! Bad bad Judge! (hitting him across the nose with a metaphorical newspaper.)