You asked: What you quoted is not the decision of SCOTUS. It is a citation from “Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.”
Who is this “Dicey” and what authority does he have in the US courts? Why should he be believed any more than somebody like Donofrio, for instance? If the court had cited Leo Donofrio, what weight would you give that citation in their decision?
See, the Wong Kim Ark decision quotes everybody as if they all had the same weight, lived at the same time, were addressing the same issues, etc. Just sorting out the quotes and putting them in order of date, authority, and direct relevance could take me weeks.
To which I say AMEN!!! That stuff is just all over the place for page after page and it is like TORTURE trying to follow it. But that Indiana case that quoted the Wong Kim Ark stuff made it real easy to follow, which I guess that is their jobs as judges, to sort it all out. Which is usually where I go if I have to cut and paste stuff in debates.
The Indiana case said one legally-binding thing: the plaintiff lacks standing.
Without taking the case up, anything the court said about the case and its underlying issue has as much legal weight as any other legal blowhard. If they wanted to rule on the case they should have accepted it and made a legally-binding decision. As it is, all they said that legally “counts” is that the plaintiff lacked standing.
Leaving out context is almost always a bad thing, even if it takes less time. Rush a miracle, man, you get rotten miracles.
In the meantime, who is this Dicey, and how can he claim that citizenship by jus soli had been automatic for the last 300 years, when Blacks born on the soil of the country had been denied citizenship almost the entire 300 years referenced?