It was. The position of the State Department (which is rather murky anyway) was not correct. And it was overruled by WKA.
If you don't think an administration can have policies which are wrong and unconstitutional, I refer you to the current administration.
Only if alien parents are permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their children's birth in the U.S., among other specifically named facts, as Gray EXPLICITLY states in the WKA decision.
If you don't think an administration can have policies which are wrong and unconstitutional, I refer you to the current administration.
And if you don't think a court can have rulings which are wrong and unconstitutional, I refer you to the current court, (Obamacare) and many previous courts. (Roe, Wickard, Plessy, etc.)
Oh, and by the way... Plessy v. Ferguson and Wong Kim Ark were THE SAME COURT!
Now *YOU* need to defend their ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson with the same degree of "the court can do no wrong" stupidity with which you have been defending the Wong Kim Ark decision. I will further point out that Plessy v. Ferguson is a 7-1 decision, while your Wong Kim Ark is only a 6-2, which in Jeff-"the court is GOD"-speak means that the Plessy decision has more legal validity than does the Wong decision!
Come on loudmouth. Tell us how the court you worship is so unerringly correct that you are willing to vouch for their correctness in the case of Plessy v Ferguson! Let Jeff explain to us how this court could not have made a mistake, and how anyone who thinks the court may be mistaken is an idiot or something.
This ought to be good.