There's actually quite a bit of discussion in that book of what "allegiance" and "jurisdiction" mean, and nothing indicates that citizen parents are required. (Remember, this is the child's allegiance we're talking about, not the parents'.) Read the part about the discussion of the civil rights act of 1866, which van Dyne says was Congress's first attempt to define citizenship. One representative quoted William Rawle's 1825 View of the Constitution of the United States to the effect that "Every person born iwthin the United States, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution." Another one asked, "What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?"
A later court said,
When it is said that, by the common law, a person born of alien parents, and in the allegiance of the United States, is born a citizen thereof, it is necessarily understood that he is not only born on soil over which the United States has or claims jurisdiction, but that such jurisdiction for the time being is both actual and exclusive, so that such person is, in fact, born within the power, protection, and obedience of the United States.That's a pretty clear statement that someone born in Hawaii in 1961 was born "in allegiance" to the U.S. and, taken with the previous quotes, is a natural-born citizen regardless of his parents' condition (usual exceptions for ambassadors etc.).
The child does not have allegiance to Hawaii and neither did his father. They were both British subjects. Their allegiance was to Britain. His father completed his temporary studies and returned to his country and worked for the government there.
It matters not, all other arguments are moot, by way of collateral estoppel, the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett determined who was a Natural Born Citizen and affirmed it in Wong Kim Ark. If Won Kim Ark was a NBC as you claim, the Supreme Court would never have had to use the 14th amendment to determine he was a citizen. They did not use the 14th amendment to determine Virginia Minor was a citizen as she was a Natural Born Citizen.
The thing people are refusing to see is that the law is not an ass (I can't say that for all judges or lawyers) and it would be absurd to say a child born in the US to two illegal alien parents (or a foundling of unknown parentage) was a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be President of the US. Native born yes, born a citizen yes, Natural Born no.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 81 the United States.‖
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Why are there "exceptions" at all? You mention Ambassadors, but you leave out two other important "exceptions." Slaves were not citizens either. (Unless they had first been manumitted.) Indians were not citizens (despite the 14th amendment) until 1924.
YOUR theory is FULL of "exceptions." The Jus Sanguinus principle (Which is what ENGLAND ITSELF uses to crown it's head of state) has NO EXCEPTIONS.
Does it not occur to any of you that the existence of "exceptions" demonstrates that it is not a "natural law" principle? Indeed, the "exceptions" for Ambassadors are a result of a "natural law" intrusion into the artificial (man made) principle of "jus soli."