[BuckeyeTexan]

If you are citing Rogers v. Bellei, then you must know that Congress does have the inherent power to define who is naturally a citizen when such an individual is not explicitly covered by the 14th Amendment. In Rogers v. Bellei, the Court cited Justice Gray's stipulation in Wong Kim Ark:

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

In doing so the Court said in Rogers v. Bellei:

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . ." (snip) And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.

In establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, Congress defines who requires naturalization and who does not because (s)he is already a citizen at birth.

And, surely, you believe that a country has an inherent right - as SCOTUS has said many times - to say who are its citizens?

[Cboldt]

-- then you must know that Congress does have the inherent power to define who is naturally a citizen when such an individual is not explicitly covered by the 14th Amendment --

I submit that you are reading something in, that is not there. In fact, you are reading something for the opposite of what it says.

If this court thought this statute conferred NBC, then this case would flat not exist.

First paragraph of your blockquote: Citizenship to a person born abroad of citizen parent is a subject regulated by Congress under rules of naturalization

Then, I think this is your "In doing so the Court said in Rogers v. Bellei"

Second full paragraph: Citizenship under the constitution is three factors, birth IN the US, naturalization IN the US, and subject to the jurisdiction. [The case hinges on construction of the word "in" emphasized above. Bellei doesn't fit any of those, because he wasn't naturalized IN the US]. Congress can assert it's power to naturalize, to include those not naturalized IN the US, but those citizens will not be 14th amendment citizens.

Third full paragraph: The court recognizes the power of Congress to confer citizenship on person born abroad. But if it wants, it can pass zero laws conferring citizenship to persons born abroad. All people born abroad are aliens. Congress can confer citizenship [implied, pursuant to it's power to naturalize], and it can pass citizenship by blood if it wants to.

I'm open to your paraphrase, that delivers the result you claim is in there. It's only three short paragraphs.