It didn't? You must have a different copy of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898) than I have sitting on my desk in front of me because not only did it "touch" on birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship was the only issue at hand in the case. It specifically addresses birthright citizenship, and, as the majority held,
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect of the submission of this case... were to present for determination the single question [emphasis mine]... namely, whether a child born in the United Sates, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. [T]his court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
In other words, the Supreme Court has recognized birthright citizenship since 1898. This is settled law, and no court has EVER ruled otherwise. Your argument is a nice one -- just like the pseudo-legalist arguments that Texas was never admitted to the Union or that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, but like those, here again the emperor has no clothes. You need more than a good story to overturn long settled constitutional law.
>In other words, the Supreme Court has recognized birthright citizenship since 1898.
Uh, NO. What Wong Kim Ark court ruled is *domiciled* persons should be considered under the jurisdiction of the U.S. National law after Kim Ark continued to treat children born to aliens as aliens.
United States never recognized birthright to anyone other than citizens.