U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
“’At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Absolutely, but this doesn't create an exclusive class of who were natural born.
“These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
One who is not both born to citizen parents, and inside the USA is not an alien or foreigner; the judge is establishing that those who were both most certainly were natural-born or natives. Thus Senator John McCain would not be denied natural born status and called an “alien or foreigner” because he was born outside the USA, neither would a child born to a US citizen inside the USA whose other parent was not a US citizen.
“Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Here the Judge doesn't even advocate these “doubts” and explicitly says this judgment doesn't settle the matter.
And for Ark it was necessary. What's your point?
No, that's incorrect. It wasn't because they were British subjects. It was because they couldn't have been citizens of the United States by birth (natural born) when the United States didn't exist when they were born.
"In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett..."
Yes they did thoroughly discuss it, and yes they quoted from that previous decision. They quoted from a lot of things, not all of which they agreed with.
But that quote from Minor V. Happersett doesn't do what you claim anyway. It doesn't create an *exclusive* definition of natural born citizen that is dependent on the parents. It just says there is no doubt about that class, and there isn't. But that doesn't mean other classes may also apply.
In fact, the Ark decision makes it plain.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."