Not really. WKA cites Minor in saying, “...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” IOW, this is a universal principle for naturally recognizing citizens. Anything outside of this definition is no longer natural, because you have to have some sort of statutory construction to allow others to be citizens at birth. That's why WKA made a point about the parents being permanent residents ... to show that they had more than temporary allegiance to the United States. Such is not so with the child of a visiting scholar.”
Wong Kim Ark says a heck of a lot more than that, and has a devastatingly detailed section compared to the “minor” historical notation of Minor. You're either being disingenuous, or you don't know what it says.
“That basis was explicitly cited by an actual court last year to conclude that Obama was an NBC.
The court you're thinking of intentionally avoided saying that Obama is an NBC. “
To quote: "However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President...
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
Yeah, they just avoided the heck out of it, didn't they? Of course, there is no actual sentence stamped “Obama is an NBC,” but anyone who can read the decision and claim that's a meaningful distinction is, again, being deliberately disingenuous.
Indiana: "we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Funny that no other court has concluded this in over a hundred years since 1898 but these guys have...just plain ignorance.
Being disingenuous is certainly you.
Allow me to school you. WKA runs down a lot of historical precedent, but a lot of it revolves around what it means to be a natural born subject. They also show the difference in having permanent versus temporary allegiance. By the time the decision is concluded, they do not declare the plaintiff to be a natural born citzen and predicate citizenship upon the permanent allegiance expressed by the parents being permanent residents. I notice you fail to show what it is you think I don't understand, so let's drop the personal nonsense. It's not a winning argument.
Yeah, they just avoided the heck out of it, didn't they? Of course, there is no actual sentence stamped “Obama is an NBC,” but anyone who can read the decision and claim that's a meaningful distinction is, again, being deliberately disingenuous.
You just proved me right in two ways. I'm not the one being disingenuous here. If they thought Obama was definitely an NBC, then they sure didn't come out and say so ... and for smart reasons. This allows them to make toothless and misleading statements when the brunt of their decision was nothing more than turning down the appeal for failing to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." It's hard for me to respect any judiciary that uses political rhetoric (so-called "birthers") in justifying any decision. And again, their justification in rejecting the plaintiffs argument is undermined by the admission that WKA does not declare ANYONE to be a natural born citizen. You can't claim to be guided by a decision that doesn't have the actual outcome you're claiming.