Rogers, you’ve got a major problem when the dissent is the only thing that comes close to saying what you want the Wong Kim Ark decision to say. Fuller is not talking about anything in the majority opinion. He’s only speaking in historical terms, which is true. Fuller also lamented that children born abroad to citizens would NOT be citizens according to the 14th amendment because they weren’t naturalized in the United States. Nothing in the majority opinion says ANYTHING about either of these issues. We can only go by what it says, not what you want it to say.
I regard Fuller to be the first person to FAIL to parse the Minor v. Happersett language correctly...so I agree with Mr. Rogers (ouch!) that Fuller is describing exactly what he believes the “conclusion” of the majority to be! Unlike Mr. Rogers I disagree with Fuller's interpretation of what the WKA majority ruled because Fuller's dissent is based on a false parsing of the Minor NBC language.
The Minor majority did NOT extend NBC status to the children as Fuller claims, but ONLY CITIZENSHIP. Even the Ankeny court and Malihi admit that Fuller was wrong...but then, as Donofrio points out, using the magic word “TANDEM” as in viewing WKA in TANDEM with the 14A, the citizenship of Barry's mom TRUMPS the fact that neither WKA nor the 14A granted NBC status to WKA. Go figure!