Non answer to the assertion.
-----
And do you not understand how legal precedent works? Obviously not.
TRANSLATION: You are too stupid to understand.
-----
Their entire rationale for declaring Wong a "citizen" was that all of their reasoning led them to the conclusion that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
An odd statement considering you previously admitted in THIS VERY POST;
The question they were asked was, "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the United States?" In the end, that was the question they answered.
LOL! You contradict yourself.
-----
And that decision is BINDING LEGAL PRECEDENT, because it was the entire rationale on which their ruling was based.
The problem that you continue to fail to comprehend is that the 'birth' IN something was not a physical location.....
but a political affiliation
One cannot be born INTO something unless one already has a PRIOR connection to it
That's true for our country:
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
AS WELL AS the laws of others:
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
1963 Kenyan Constitution- Chapter 6- Citizenship, Section 87
-----
I do believe this will be my last post to you on this thread.
You have undeniably proven you not only have no true interest in the subject, you are nothing more than an intellectual roadblock to those who do.
Of course I don't.
I said:
Their entire rationale for declaring Wong a "citizen" was that all of their reasoning led them to the conclusion that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
In fact, they even stated:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions:
the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
So if you can't read that, or can't understand it, let me spell it out for you:
The 14th Amendment didn't create some new kind of citizen. There were always natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens.
The 14th Amendment simply ensured that those rights of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP were not denied to persons born on US soil, except for the historical exceptions and Indians in tribes.
Continuing:
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
They specifically ruled that every citizen or subject of any other country, while domiciled here, was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The child of such person, therefore, was AFFIRMED by the 14th Amendment IN THE ANCIENT AND FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF CITIZENSHIP.
His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;’ and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides…”
So once AGAIN, the Court tells us, using DIFFERENT language, that Wong Kim Ark was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
They've already told us that "subject" and "citizen" are PRECISELY ANALOGOUS TERMS.
So when they quote Lord Coke, and apply his words to the UNITED STATES, it is completely obvious that they are saying such children are natural born citizens of the United States.
It takes an enormous amount of wishful thinking to gloss over this. It simply can't be done by anyone who reads the text of their decision in an unbiased way.
Can't be done.
At the very end, having proclaimed such things as this as their conclusions along the way, they sum up by saying, we were asked whether Wong Kim Ark is a citizen. Yes, he's a citizen.
I haven't contradicted myself in any way.
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.'
The first thing to note here is that Greisser's father was domiciled in GERMANY. So he was a visiting or transient alien.
This is not the same case as a child born to alien parents who live here.
Secondly, as one writer on this subject (Woodman) has noted, there seems to have been a period in the late 1800s when the US State Department started taking sort of a birther position on these cases. This was not the case previously, as shown by the Opinion of Lincoln's Attorney General Bates.
The Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 clarified what the law had been from the beginning, and what it was supposed to be. You can argue that that case didn't make things absolutely clear in regard to the children of TRANSIENT aliens domiciled in other countries. And you might even have a point.
But in these instances, such children are still either natural born US citizens, or not citizens at all. There is simply no case to be made that natural born citizenship requires citizen parents for those born on US soil.