Comment: You can't confirm it because

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: According to this (see in situ)

You can't confirm it because

You can't confirm it because you were not yet born? What an odd argument from someone who has clear opinions about Supreme Court rulings in the nineteenth century.

Let me help you. Here is the what the New York Times said on June 9, 1880 in a completely non-controversial statement about his father:

"Gen. Chester A. Arthur was born in Franklin county Vt., Oct. 5, 1830. He is the oldest son of a family of two sons and five daughters. His father was the Rev. Dr. William Arthur, a baptist clergyman, who emigrated to this country from County Antrim, Ireland in his eighteenth year and died Oct. 27, 1875, in Newtonville, near Albany."

There is NO evidence that this raised a red flag with anyone despite the fact that Americans had far more respect for the Constitution in 1880 than we do today.

Minor v. Happersett didn't settle anything. It clearly stipulates “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (”these doubts” referring to citizenship of those born in the United States of alien parents). How can a ruling which finds the issue to be in "doubt" be cited as supporting your position?

By comparison, Kim Wong Ark was crystal clear. You cite an "attorney" to argue otherwise (without specifying why). I prefer to look at the words of the ruling itself:

According to the Court, the English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such 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.....The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”