..... 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.
Notice they declared him a citizen, but not a natural born one. In fact, from earlier in the opinion:
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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] 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.
Say WHAT?
1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born
2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes 'natural born'.
and
3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of 'citizen' in their decision....
WHY?
Because the question wasn't if Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen, but whether he was a 'citizen of the United States'
------
Since the decision made it plain Wong Kim was not natural-born [due to his parents citizenship], the only other type of citizen he COULD be was one naturalized at birth via the 14th Amendment.
Guess the judges missed the fact the co author of the 14th Amendment said it DIDN'T include foreigners or aliens.
[center column, halfway down]
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
-----
If you love anchor babies, thank the decision of Wong Kim Ark.
“If you love anchor babies, thank the decision of Wong Kim Ark.”
Actually, you would have to thank the Founders who used a legal phrase that would permit such a thing to happen. WKA didn’t make up a meaning, but discussed the meaning as the Founders understood it.
I see you choose not to answer the two simple yes or no questions I asked you.
Let’s try again:
1) Are you prepared to go with what the EVIDENCE says regarding where “offences against law of nations” came from in our Constitution?
2) Prior to my asking, had you ever carefully read the Opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark, from start to finish?
These are not hard questions. Yes, or no.
I can deal with your other twistings after we’ve dealt with those.