Wong Kim Ark spells out the definitions:
“... all children, born in a country of [p680] 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.”
They did not find the child of foreign nationals born inside the U.s. to be a natural born subject. If you think it says so, please cite the exact passage.
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”
RELEVANT PASSAGE:
“for if he (a foreign subject) hath issue here, that issue (or child) is a natual-born subject”
So obviously Wong Kim Ark does say that the child of foreign nationals born inside the USA are “natural born subjects”.