Sorry, but I haven't ignored any quotes. Gray makes a distinction between natural-born citizenship and common-law citizenship via the 14th amendment. They aren't the same concepts, so it's not necessary to quote irrelevant concepts.
To paraphrase another poster: Wong Kim Ark doesn't say what you think it does. The proof of that is Rogers v. Bellei, WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 U. S. 657 (1927)
The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute;
This is partially true, but the court clarifies this statement later in the Weedin v. Chin Bow decision here:
The majority in that case, as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the government, and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment.
See??? The common-law part was only effective via the 14th amendment. Prior to the amendment, some authorities declared citizenship on the basis of jus soli birth, but such citizenship was with doubt and is NOT legally characterized as natural-born. The Supreme Court defined only ONE type of citizenship that is characterized as natural-born: birth on the soil to citizen parents. Thanks for helping prove me right.
What you said above makes no sense. But you probably realize that. Look at Rogers v. Bellei, that decision is clear that birth on the soil is sufficient.
You act as if your statement is enough to make it true. Where is your SCOTUS case confirming "NOT legally characterized as natural-born"?
I'll restate it for you from our previous discussions: Several courts have affirmed that much of the US Constitution and law follows English common law. SCOTUS has said specifically that the US follows this in jus soli citizenship. In English common law "born on the soil" equals "natural born" (usual diplomatic and military exceptions.)
Further for your fantasy that "14th amendment citizenship" is somehow different than "non 14th amendment citizenship, " see Rogers v Bellei, quoting Afroyim v Rusk:
And in Afroyim, both majority and dissenting Justices appear to have agreed on the basic proposition that the scope of the Citizenship Clause, whatever its effect, did reach all citizens. The opinion of the Court in Afroyim described the Citizenship Clause as "calculated completely to control the status of citizenship."Which meas that the 14th amendment controls and applies to all US citizens. The 14th amendment does not make separate categories of born citizens.