Not really. WKA cites Minor in saying, "...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." IOW, this is a universal principle for naturally recognizing citizens. Anything outside of this definition is no longer natural, because you have to have some sort of statutory construction to allow others to be citizens at birth. That's why WKA made a point about the parents being permanent residents ... to show that they had more than temporary allegiance to the United States. Such is not so with the child of a visiting scholar.
That basis was explicitly cited by an actual court last year to conclude that Obama was an NBC.
The court you're thinking of intentionally avoided saying that Obama is an NBC. They also contradicted their own argument by admitting that WKA did not pronounce its plaintiff to be an NBC. They claimed WKA gave them guidance, even though that decision didn't come up with the result they wanted to claim. They didn't connect the dots.
Not really. WKA cites Minor in saying, “...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.” IOW, this is a universal principle for naturally recognizing citizens. Anything outside of this definition is no longer natural, because you have to have some sort of statutory construction to allow others to be citizens at birth. That's why WKA made a point about the parents being permanent residents ... to show that they had more than temporary allegiance to the United States. Such is not so with the child of a visiting scholar.”
Wong Kim Ark says a heck of a lot more than that, and has a devastatingly detailed section compared to the “minor” historical notation of Minor. You're either being disingenuous, or you don't know what it says.
“That basis was explicitly cited by an actual court last year to conclude that Obama was an NBC.
The court you're thinking of intentionally avoided saying that Obama is an NBC. “
To quote: "However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President...
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
Yeah, they just avoided the heck out of it, didn't they? Of course, there is no actual sentence stamped “Obama is an NBC,” but anyone who can read the decision and claim that's a meaningful distinction is, again, being deliberately disingenuous.