That's all you've got, and you resort to a tortured interpretation to get even that. A 14th Amendment citizen is not a natural born citizen. The original 14th Amendment citizens were not natural born citizens, they weren't even citizens at all, which was the source of contention. To claim that subsequent applications of this somehow altered Article II, Section I is not logical at all.
Please read again what was written by Justice Gray:
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
If you're born on US soil and subject to US laws then you're a citizen. Tortured is trying to argue otherwise, when Justice Gray was quite explicit in his qualification.
At the time of Elk Indian reservations had their own laws and were not entirely subject to US law. That is why they were excluded, and why Gray added the qualifier. You appear to ignore that, and as a result end up with the illogical - and unconstitutional - position you hold.
Wong Kim Ark, who was denied citizenship despite resident alien parents who were themselves denied the option of naturalization by treaty with China.
FALSE. Wong Kim Ark was ruled a citizen by birth. Please see his case; the citizenship of his parents was immaterial to Ark's citizenship. He was a citizen by birth in the US. Your ignorance about the results of the Ark case is startling, but does explain why you hold an unconstitutional position.