Sez who? I bet Hawaii thought the child had allegiance to it. If you bothered to read, and were able to understand, the very book you linked to--or even the bits I've posted here--you'd know that "allegiance" doesn't refer to some kind of generalized loyalty. Did the child have the rights of an American citizen or a British citizen? If the father had committed a crime, would he have been tried under American law or British law?
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.
That's circular. Obviously Wong Kim Ark was not born of two citizen parents, so they couldn't use that standard. That they used another standard does not prove that he wasn't an NBC.
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.
Nobody said it did. That excerpt applies to a child born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. If we get one of those running for president, we should probably have the discussion about whether they're eligible for the presidency. Oh wait, we did and we (sorta) did.
If NBC meant born in the USA of alien parents then they would not have needed the 14th amendment, your argument is circular.
While you are reading your oldies but goodies, find the part that says the bill of rights does not pertain to aliens....
....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. ...
....Nobody said it did. That excerpt applies to a child born abroad to U.S. citizen parents. If we get one of those running for president, we should probably have the discussion about whether they're eligible for the presidency. Oh wait, we did and we (sorta) did.....
That excerpt applies to anyone.