I believe this is certainly correct for subsequent courts. I do not think this was the intent of the Wong court, (Plessy v Ferguson) but I am not completely certain about this.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents went back to China and never returned to the United States.
I don't remember for sure anymore, but they may not have had a choice. I *think* the treaty required them to return. In any case, it was customary at the time for people to want to return to China before they died. I think they would also send bodies back when people died. I believe this is mentioned in the Debates on the 14th.
“Permanently domiciled” has come to mean having a U.S. address and not being a tourist.
That is my understanding as well. At the very least some sort of long term Denizen.
An unsuccessful effort was made during World War II in 1942 by the “Native Sons of the Golden West” to convince the Supreme Court to revisit and overrule the Wong Kim Ark ruling, in a case entitled Regan v. King challenging the citizenship status of roughly 2,600 U.S.-born persons of Japanese ancestry. The plaintiffs’ attorney termed Wong Kim Ark “one of the most injurious and unfortunate decisions” ever handed down by the Supreme Court and hoped the new case would give the court “an opportunity to correct itself”. A federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily rejected this contention, each citing Wong Kim Ark as a controlling precedent, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.