"Wong" itself isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on how you apply it. The court ruled that the 14th amendment granted Wong citizenship, and that is not an irrational claim under the 14th amendment. Wong's parents were permanent residents (Denizens) when he was born, and he grew up in the United States.
He was not an "Anchor Baby". His parents may very well have chosen to naturalize and remain here, but for the fact that was prohibited by treaty.
Where "Wong" goes wrong is when people try to apply it outside of the very narrow scope that applied specifically to Wong. ~Permanent resident parents and born in the country. They were here legally, (legal denizens) and for long enough for him to grow to manhood.
Unfortunately courts subsequently decreed "anchor babies are citizens!" which is a stretch too far for "Wong", but misapplied precedent is hard to correct.
My point was only that the Wong ruling began the process of judges equating 14th Amendment Born Citizens and Article 2 Natural Born Citizens.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents went back to China and never returned to the United States. “Permanetly domiciled” has come to mean having a U.S. address and not being a tourist.
Unfortunately courts subsequently decreed "anchor babies are citizens!" which is a stretch too far for "Wong", but misapplied precedent is hard to correct.Our country has a growing problem -- a great many of our citizens are now carrying dual citizenship into adulthood. This situation arose because of the creation modern dual citizenship loopholes, such as with the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, whereupon wives no longer acquired derivative citizenship from their husbands upon marriage. Since one parent may remain an alien, children of such unions are born with naturally divided allegiances. This isn't the only loophole that gives rise to dual citizenship, with perhaps the most egregious being the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment that confers American citizenship by "magic dirt," thereby creating dual citizenship anchor babies, who, if spirited away back to their home country, may have no natural allegiance at all to the USA.
Note that the problem is not that some other country may foist random citizenship claims upon our citizens, for our government rightly would not recognize such folly. The problem is that officially recognized dual citizenship is allowed to persist into adulthood. This creates a cohort of unnatural hybrid citizens of split allegiance and questionable loyalty. This can only be described as civic bigamy and is as destructive and dangerous to a nation as is marital bigamy to a marriage.
Unlike these hybrid native citizens (whom our government allows to linger in split allegiance limbo), when complete aliens naturalize to become American citizens, they must take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the USA and officially renounce all prior allegiances. Their citizenship status from that point forward as recognized by the USA is 100 percent American and nothing else. Note that a native natural Citizen has this status without the need of any process or law. Obviously, a natural born Citizen must have this status from birth on.
How can anyone in their right mind think that it is acceptable for our commander-in-chief to ever have had a weaker, more tenuous citizenship status than what we require of all naturalized former aliens, i.e., allegiance exclusive to only America? This sets the citizenship bar over which all presidents must pass and the Constitution demands that they pass it (exclusive allegiance) naturally from birth on.