Nobody said anything about quoting "ALL of the other case." The quote from Lynch v. Clarke could have easily been seen as relevant as was this little bit of "obiter dictum" cited in Wong Kim Ark.
But all suggestions to that effect seem to have been derived, immediately or ultimately, from one or the other of these two sources: the one, the Year Book of 1 Ric. III, (1483) fol. 4, pl. 7, reporting a saying of Hussey, C.J.,that he who is born beyond sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law, but the statute makes clear, &c.,-- which, at best, was but obiter dictum, for the Chief Justice appears to have finally rested his opinion on the statute.
Wong Kim Ark wasn't born "beyond the sea" to an English mother and father, so your friend is basically saying the court shouldn't be using quotes like this. I won't argue otherwise. I was only pointing out that Lynch v. Clarke has a quote that would probably be very satisfying to faithers, Obots and apologists, but that Justice Gray made a point NOT to cite it.
Sooo, while you are trying to read Wong Kim Ark for what is NOT said, you should be reading it for what IS said:
You're not paying attention. I've already quoted the citation from U.S. v Rhodes as was cited in Ankeny v. Daniels. That citation is actually talking about the Shanks v. Dupont case from the preceding paragraph, which you can see below:
In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 247, the supreme court of the United States said: “During the war each party claimed the allegiance of the natives of the colonies as due exclusively to itself. The Americans insisted upon the allegiance of all born within the states, respectively; and Great Britain asserted an equally exclusive claim. The treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. [**17] It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well [**18] as of England.
link
Context matters. Notice the part underlined that says "natives or otherwise." This is referring to both those who were born in the United States and those who weren't. Depending on the allegiance of the parents, so tooooo was the allegiance of the child. Thus, you could be born IN the United States and NOT be a citizen of the U.S., but instead a natural-born Subject of England. Notice it doesn't say ALL born in the U.S. were U.S. citizens ... only those who "adhered" to the U.S. as opposed to those who adhered to the crown. Birth on the soil was NOT sufficient by itself to determine citizenship.
"Allegiance" here is determined by which country the parents "adhered" to ... IOW, what their citizenship was.
Natural-born citizenship inherently follows this bit of "common law" because allegiance to the country is established through the citizenship of the parents. This was missing from the 14th amendment, so to make up for that, the amendment includes the "subject" clause, which Gray interpreted to mean having permanent residence and domicil. He does NOT however EVER refer to the latter as natural born citizenship ... because it's NOT by the definition he used from Minor.
You don’t get to go back to the cases that are quoted and add stuff to the case they are quoted in. Because that is the court’s job. They bring into the case, the stuff that they think applies. If courts did stuff the way you do, every case would be 9,000 pages long or more.
The court quotes what it thinks is applicable. Period. The Wong Kim Ark judges must not have figured that talking about people caught in the middle of the American Revolution, between England and America, were really applicable beyond those times.
The quote above was in Section III of the Wong Kim Ark case, which started out explaining how American law so far had followed the English common law. Remember these two paragraphs???:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
NOW here, in this No. III section the judges start listing the American law cases that PROVED the “same rule” was in effect here, and one of them was:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
If you want to be a lawyer when you grow up, and then try to be a judge, then it will be YOUR job to quote stuff that you think is applicable.
This is one way HOW you Vattle Birthers just mangle law stuff all over the place. You keep wanting to cram stuff into a case that isn’t there. Like Vattel, like natural law, like people’s library cards, like a letter to George Washington, etc. etc., even one person I read somewhere who was quoting Deuteronomy or something. I forget who it was.
My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, says this is what PRETEND lawyers do because they don’t know any better. This is one reason why people laugh at Vattle Birthers,and say, like Mark Levin, that the Vattle stuff is Birther crap, and there is no debate, and Vattle birthers are not rational.
Sooo, quit trying to put stuff into a case that isn’t there, and maybe you might be able to follow what is going on for a change.