I believe that you are truly beyond reach, but for one final try:
Number one: the majority did rule that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”. Fact. They did not. They ruled that he was a citizen, and that only. MANY citizens by birth are not natural born citizens, for example, my son, Gerald. While he is a US citizen, and has never been a citizen of any other country but the US, and was a US citizen by the circumstances of his birth, those circumstances are described and authorized by US statute, and while many of the Framers would have argued that his circumstances of birth might make him “natural born” this was not generally agreed at the time. As a result, it is only by the operation of statute law that he derives his citizenship. Ergo, not natural born.
Second: Almost every argument in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark derives from an “analysis” of English common law. But that analysis is incomplete, deceptive, and duplicitous. Moreover, the entire argument overlooks the express intent of the framers NOT to base our citizenship on the English model.
Third: Dicta is not controlling precedent whether it appears in the majority or minority opinion. Dicta depends for whatever force it may carry on the weight of argument. In the Wong Kim Ark case, the minority opinion is logical, faithful to history, and true to the Constitution. The majority opinion is an embarrassment.
So are you.
It might help if you read the decision. Justice Gray wrote, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Citizen by birth, citizen at birth, natural born citizen, all are synonymous.
MANY citizens by birth are not natural born citizens, for example, my son, Gerald.
Not being familiar with the circumstances of his birth I couldn't say. But the fact that Congress legislates who is a natural born citizen and who is not changes nothing. The Constitution says Congress will enact uniform rules of naturalization. Logically, in order to enact the laws on naturalization Congress must first identify who doesn't need to be naturalized.
As a result, it is only by the operation of statute law that he derives his citizenship. Ergo, not natural born.
Not true at all.
Second: Almost every argument in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark derives from an “analysis” of English common law. But that analysis is incomplete, deceptive, and duplicitous. Moreover, the entire argument overlooks the express intent of the framers NOT to base our citizenship on the English model.
And where is this intent expressed?
In the Wong Kim Ark case, the minority opinion is logical, faithful to history, and true to the Constitution. The majority opinion is an embarrassment.
Because you say it is? Well thanks for clearing that us for us.