Wong Kim Ark could not have been naturalized due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts whch barred him from naturalization.
The decision of the Court stated: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
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.”
Again, you say something which is true, but which is irrelevant to the point. The section of Wong Kim Ark I cited deals with children born outside of the US.
Please address that point.
“Wong Kim Ark could not have been naturalized due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts whch barred him from naturalization.”
The U.S. Supreme Court decision determined Wong Kim Ark was born with naturalized U.S. citizenship before the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Acts and was thus not subject to those enactments.
“The decision of the Court stated: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
A natural born subject has very little to do with a natural born citizen. The term, natural born subject, encompasses all persons who were subjects of the English/British sovereign whether they were subjects by naturalization at birth or born with two British subject parents in England/Britain. To be an English/British citizen required birth within the jurisdiction of England/Britain and a English/British citizen father; and being a mere English natural born subject without English citizenship was insufficient to qualify the child for English/British citizenship.
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are NOT convertible terms at all, because they define substantially different persons and membership qualifications.
“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.”
Some natural born subjects were naturalized and some natural born subjects were not naturalized. A natural born subject is not in anyway the same meaning or purpose as a natural born citizen; and all of the attempts to mislead people into misbelieving the terms are somehow equivalent deserve the strongest possible condemnation.