Read this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
They go to great lengths discussing the meaning of natural born subject/citizen - which they describe as interchageable. They needed to decide if WKA was a citizen in spite of treaties with China, and they argued that he qualified as a natural born citizen and thus was a citizen per the Constitution, and therefor no treaty could override it.
edge919 doesn’t like it, but there isn’t one state in the union that has challenged Obama’s eligibility - not one. Nor did any member of Congress. The Supreme Court refused to take a case challenging it. At some point, edge919 needs to face the fact that no legal authority agrees with his analysis.
----
From your link-
and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States
Again, Wong Kim claimed to be NATIVE born, not natural-born.
Also from your link-
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen,
Judges DON'T make distinctions unless there is a difference.
-----
Regarding your previous assertion that alien parents can have natural-born children
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.' 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399.
Richard Greisser
Rogers, you’re intentionally misrepresenting and misinterpreting the decision. They don’t call natural born subject and natural born citizen interchangeable. Far from it. They make NO argument that Wong Kim Ark qualified as a a naturalb born citizen. The only definition per the Constitution is citizen of the United States via the 14th amendment. The definition of NBC, they say in accordance with Minor V. Happersett, is OUTSIDE the Constitution. The reason the treaty doesn’t override the 14th amendment, they say, is because “... it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” And finally, despite your weak attempt to make this personal, it’s not about what I like or don’t like. I’m going by the words they used and nothing in that decision declares Wong Kim Ark or any person not born of citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
~~
"interchageable"? [sic] Not so. From WKA -- at your link:
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
"citizen" versus "natural born"... Distinct and separate.
~~
(How does that foot in your mouth taste -- now that you've shot yourself there?)