From a more scholarly source than you or I:
John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, 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…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
Lyman Trumbull presents an insurmountable barrier of his own by declaring: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Sen. Howard follows up by stating that: “the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court had already tackled the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause prior to Wong Kim Ark, and unlike the Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the words by those who introduced the language of the clause. In the Slaughterhouse cases the court noted “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
Would anyone dare to say an American citizen visiting Russia was no longer a subject of the United States? The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) correctly determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Both Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull affirm this.
When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Well now, the issue was not citizenship being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries who owed this country no direct allegiance was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.
The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”
It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” This was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, these former slaves had no political attachment to any other country, meaning they did not owe “allegiance to anybody else.”
To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.
The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself, when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.
Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.
It was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction to the United States. Obviously then, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.
For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.”
The most damning indictment against the majority’s conclusion came in the year 1874 with a joint Congressional report that declared the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.” This makes it impossible to argue the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was merely to reassert the common law doctrine of unconditional allegiance through birth. The common law doctrine by operation creates double allegiances by making children of other nation’s citizens born locally subjects of the crown whether they consent or not.
There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. § 14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship: “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”
The power to admit foreign citizens to U.S. citizenship resides exclusively with Congress and not with the Supreme Court. In essence, the court usurped the lawful will of the legislative branch.
The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, Justice Brewer for the court laid down a bizarre doctrine that said it was “immaterial” how one obtains property: “He may have made his fortune by dealing in slaves, as a lobbyist, or in any other way obnoxious to public condemnation; but, if he has acquired the legal title to his property, he is protected in its possession, and cannot be disturbed until the receipt of the actual cash value.”
Yes it was, as anyone with at least an 8th grade reading ability who read the decision would know.
Instead of cutting and pasting what other people wrote about the Kim Wong Ark case, why don't you try reading it for yourself?