First, the ‘question of birthright citizenship was not before the court’ in Wong Kim Ark. Then the ‘question of birthright citizenship was not before the court’ in Plyler v. Doe. And yet, Brennan places a deceitful citation in a footnote of the later and the liberal establishment uses it as a false basis for decades of pro “anchor baby” regulations.
Sometimes footnotes are given full force as precedents and sometimes they are not.
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer! The courts are lawless.
For a very good and easier read about citizenship than Wong Kim Ark is to review
Supreme Court case Rogers v. Bellei, 1971.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html
You too can be just as "good" as lieyers reading legal opinions. :-)
"How to Read a Legal Opinion "
By Orin Kerr, George Mason U., 2007