So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
How many judges and courts is this now that you don't like. All of them??? Because they all of them, every single one, disagree with you googy gibberish. Are you addicted to being wrong???
Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.
No one disagrees that some authorites go farther and recognize as CITIZENS those born in the country of parents without reference to the citizenship of the parents. All we are pointing out, is that like Waite said in the Minor decision, there is DOUBT about such persons being citizens. After all, that's why these cases went to court — because there was doubt. For those born in the country to citizen parents, there is no doubt. The persons in this second class are natural-born citizens. The persons in the first class are not.
If the Lynch case was a compelling legal precedent, why didn't Gray stop there and declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen?? I'm curious to hear your rationalization. This quote of Lynch was on page 673. Gray wrote 32 more pages of decision beyond this acknowledgment of a common-law declaration. Why do YOU think he did that??