All the stuff in Wong, and every other citizenship case, about “natural born citizen” is dicta. Not necessary to the finding in the case. The finding in Wong was that he was a citizen, under the terms of the 14th amendment. Not that he was a “natural born citizen”, since that was not at issue in the case. He merely wanted to be able to remain in the US, hold property and vote, not become President.
I think we have gone over the “dicta” argument on other threads. The language is there in Wong and courts are relying upon it. You may find this article interesting. It was written in March 2008, and titled “Indians and Invaders”.
It discusses Wong and how the revisionists try to overcome the 14th Amendment and Wong by the ‘allegiance” arguments. This is one you may to printout and keep. It discusses the concepts of “invaders” as applied to illegal immigrants. The footnotes are fun, too. I like the part about the criminal defendant who uses for his defense the argument he has not accepted the jurisdiction of the law.
parsy, who says even the Heritage Foundation has to admit the language in Wong is “broad.”