The Wong case actually quotes and earlier case; Minor v. Happersett in 1875, which was the first constitutional test for the 14th Amendment. The decision in Happersett and quoted in Wong is this:
““‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’” “
But what you conveniently ignore is the fact that Minor v. Happersett doesn’t define natural-born citizenship either. And that if Justice Waite says that there may be some question whether children born in the U.S. of parents who are not citizens are citzens themselves, Justice Gray clears that up in the Ark decision. Such children are citizens. Not only citizens, but citizens by birth with is synonymous with natural-born citizen.
Can you tell me what part of that excerpt is supposed to determine anything whatsoever about the subject at hand? You probably mean to highlight the part that says: “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” To you, this implies native born and natural born citizens are not the same. Except that the rest of the quote goes on to explicitly say they’re not going to inquire into whether native born citizens are also natural born citizens, which is the one thing in which we’re interested.