Here is the concluding paragraph of the decision of the court in Ark v. United States:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/649.html
The court clearly state that although Ark was born of non-citizen parents who were citizens of China at the time of his birth, and owed allegiance to China, he was still a CITIZEN of the United States at birth.
If the author of this opinion piece actually read the court's decision, then he lied in order to prove his point.
They had permanent residency, so they had legal status.
...but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business...
Meaning the parents were here legally!
The 14th gave citizenship to slaves and their children. “Wong Kim Arc” USSC decision expanded that to all children born in the US to legally residing parents, citizens or not.
Key word here: LEGALLY.
The Supreme Court Decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) contains:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.The reasoning of the decision explicitly excludes persons not born "within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction," of the US. Like ILLEGAL invaders.
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
Thank you for clarifying how the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
FWIW, from a practical standpoint I see no way a majority of Americans will ever support the deportation of American citizens because their parents came here illegally. We might be able to get a law passed that stops birthright citizenship from the date of passage forward, but you can bet the courts would rule against it.
“but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States”
That is quite different from an illegal alien...