The cite is exactly on point, which is the point.
Of course, the birthers would think it was "lamebrained". They don't like it. Too bad.
"The HOLDING of the case does not support your views in any case. Wong Kim Ark was not trying to establish that he was a Natural Born Citizen, and the court did not reach that conclusion, either."
The holding certainly does support my view. What do you think the court held? You do know what the result was for Wong don't you?
Of course. The court said that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, by virtue of the fact that his parents were legal US residents when he was born in the Unties States.
They did NOT say he was a Natural Born Citizen. They were not asked to rule on such a thing, and they did not.
Yes it was, but Wong was not asking to be recognized as natural born citizen, just a citizen. And the court found him to be one.
The lamebrained part is where the court blathered on about English Common Law perspectives on citizenship (or should I say SUBJECTHOOD) when those concepts were expressly REJECTED by the Framers and their contemporaries.
I would propose that the concept of Citizenship most widely held in the nascent United States was the one Contained in Vattel’s The Law of Nations and referenced thus by Ben Franklin:
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?