[sourcery]

The correct translation of "natural born subject" into American law is simply "citizen." So the Wong Kim Ark holding is that those born in the US are citizens. Which is precisely what the 14th Amendment says.

[BladeBryan]

sourcery wrote: "The correct translation of 'natural born subject' into American law is simply 'citizen.' So the Wong Kim Ark holding is that those born in the US are citizens. Which is precisely what the 14th Amendment says."

That's not what the Court says:

"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth. [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting A.V. Dicey's Digest of the Law of England]

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting State v. Manuel]

Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land. [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting 2 Kent Com. (6th ed.)]

Sourcery, I don't know what kind of work you do, but it's clearly not legal scholarship. I'm not a constitutional scholar either, but I know enough to see that your analysis warrants a big red X through it. You are fooling people who want to be fooled, including yourself, but that's it.