The difference in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his alien parents were legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time, every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.
They fell under our jurisdiction because by law because they were actually bared from citizenship, the question before the court was did he get citizenship even though his parents were barred from it.
What did they decide?
“The difference in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his alien parents were legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time, every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.”
How is this a “difference”? I am at an utter loss as to explain how Wong Kim Ark’s parents being “legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time” is any different from your garden-variety child born “subject to the laws” of the U.S.
How do the particulars of the Wong Kim Ark case differ from Obama’s particulars as alleged in the Berg case, for instance? Obama’s mother and father were here legally, just like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, right? If Obama was born on U.S. soil, he would be a citizen from birth for the exact same reasons Wong Kim Ark was.
“every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.”
Tell me why this matters. Everyone I’ve seen use the Wong Kim Ark case to defend the idea that children born on U.S. soil are natural-born citizens recognizes that Wong’s parents were aliens. What are you getting at by saying “at the time his parents could not become citizens”? What is the difference between his parents simply not being citizens and his parents not being able to become citizens?
And the court ruled he did.