Thanks for that reference. I noticed the case is from 1898. Travel in those days, especially across an ocean, was probably not too convenient. Settling in might have been considered de facto evidence of a desire to assimilate and pursue "Life, Liberty, and Happiness".
We now have air travel, borders that seem porous, and it is far easier to "visit" this country and begin reaping benefits. In my feeble mind, there's a difference between "moving" to the USA and "visiting".
I will spend more time looking at the opinion.
As I understand the case, US v Won Kim Ark only addressed “Citizen”. It was aslo a state case, if I remember correctly.However a precedent was set by the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett.
The US Supreme Court’s precedent defining a natural born citizen as one born in the US to parents who were citizens via the case of Minor v. Happersett. That case had two issues, citizenship and voting rights. The citizenship issue was determined by the SCOTUS directly construing the “natural born Citizen” clause from Article 2, Section 1. This is the only US Supreme Court case to have directly construed the clause. As such, it remains as good law and precedent which means Obama occupies the White House in direct contradiction to standing US law.
Reference:http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/