[mlo]

In fact, the previous SCOTUS decisions have made it clear that a person born within the US, *regardless of the citizenship of the parents*, is natural born.

"You are deliberately misstating facts. There has never been such a decision."

No, you are deliberately mistating facts.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

[RegulatorCountry]

You and I have discussed United States v. Wong Kim Ark numerous times, and you persist in citing mention of English common law made in dicta, when in fact Mr. Wong was not determined to be a natural born citizen.

You. Know. This.

So, stop trying to muddy the waters and confuse people.

Mr. Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a citizen. Not a natural born citizen, just a citizen.

[John Valentine]

I wish you and others would stop dragging Wong Kim Ark into the debate. The case is NOT on point. Moreover, the dicta in this case is often lamebrained, wrongheaded, untrue as to facts cited.

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.

[El Gato]

That's dicta. The case did not concern natural born citizenship, only citizenship. Here is the Question, and the Decision.

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

...

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.