The Supreme Court, in its 6-2 decision that has not been overturned in 115 years went on to say: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”
None of the major conservative legal foundations or law firms and none of the conservative legal scholars who regularly argue originalist/textualist/strict constructionist positions before the US Supreme Court (such as Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43 former Solicitor Generals) has represented a Petitioner in an Obama eligibility appeal nor have they submitted any amicus briefs in support of the appellants in any of those “Obama is ineligible” appeals. That includes the Heritage Foundation.
That's U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
The reality is that Gray himself explicitly limited the effect of the ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, 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."Question asked and answered.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent whose country asserts citizenship jurisdiction in the same manner. Legally, they are not U.S. citizens. They do not meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement defined in the Congressional Globe (Record).
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, [nc - prior to the 14th Amendment] that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.
John Bingham had said several years earlier: (1862)
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens."
What is Bingham saying in your opinion?
