Well good for you.
However, you'll forgive me if I will place more weight on the court's interpretation of those cases rather than yours.
The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.
The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.
Being a liberal troll, you OBVIOUSLY do not care to read the applicable citations. Because, you will find out that you are wrong.
BTW: If you bothered to read Calvin's Case - you will find that he WAS declared to be a natural born subject. The Court had been petitioned to deny him that status so that he could not inherit - since he had been born in Scotland. The Court ruled that he had been born AFTER James I united the kingdoms and, being born in Scotland he was born within the sovreign's dominion. It was ALSO ruled that he WAS BORN under a single allegiance to that same sovreign [James I].
As far as the citations, Justice Gray CLEARLY lied to some extent.
Although children born in England to alien parents were USUALLY considered to be natural born subjects, he CONVENIENTLY NEGLECTED to add the following citation from Calvin's Case:
" ... 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject ..."
Calvin's Case clearly states that a child can only be a natural born subject if he is born within the sovreign's dominion AND under actual obedience to that same sovreign. That obedience was transmitted through the parents - BOTH parents had to be under actual obedience to the sovreign.
Actual obedience means solitary allegiance - but Justice Gray fails to mention it.
<>The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.<>
I’ll make it easy for you. Below is the link to the Wong Kim Ark decision. Please post the words from that decision that “clearly conclude” that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html