What you quoted doesn’t say that natural born citizenship means native born. English common law made those persons born in the colonies of colonist parents natural born subjects. This remained in effect up until the Constitution was ratified, and perhaps beyond because there were still British loyalists (kind of like Obama who says his status at birth was governed by British law). You could be native born in the United States and either be a British subject or a U.S. citizen depending on where you loyalties were. The 14th amendement didn’t change this because it recognized you might be subject to another country. They didn’t recognize dual citizenship at the time, so you were either subject to the United States or subject to the country of your parents if they only had temporary allegiance in the United States. For Wong Kim Ark, the court acknowledged native born citizenship because the parents were subject to the United States by being permanent residents, having domicile in the United States and operating a business here.
Obama’s father did not have permanent residence nor do business here. He was a visiting scholar. Obama’s mama married two foreign nationals, the second of which she promptly moved out of the country with and declared her child an Indonesian citizen. From whom would Obama derive natural U.S. allegiance in that mess?? Nobody. Plus, we still don’t know for sure WHERE he was born.
As far as "dual citizenship" the US does not recognize such, and I do not challenge that notion. Similarly, I do not see how what a foreign nation claims over a US citizen would affect the US' claim on that citizen. If Canada suddenly claimed all US citizens as their own citizens, does that immediately negate our possible natural born status?
I simply posit that what another nation claims about a person is irrelevant because the US ignores that claim. It only worries about its own claim AND what the citizen pledges. If you do not claim allegiance to that foreign nation, how does that foreign nation's claim on you matter?