“The Supreme Court in 1898 used the term to describe the citizen status of ‘native born’ instead of ‘natural born’ for a good reason, and to cite a key clause in the 14th Amendment with the meaning of ‘Not owing allegiance to anybody else.’”
I think I just noticed a logical problem. If, as you argue, the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause requires that a child’s parents not owe allegiance to another country, why would the court decide that Wong Ark was a U.S. citizen? That is to say, how do you exclude Wong Ark from being president using text from the 14th amendment when the exact same text was used to give citizenship?
If the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause did not keep him from being a citizen, then how could it keep him from being president? Again, no part of the Constitution offers a different definition of natural born citizen than the definition of a “native” born citizen offered under the 14th amendment.
Citizen in this use is like arguing that sperm are life so life begins before comception ... the fallacy hangs on missusing Organ or subunit and Oragism. Naturalized citizens are citizens. If law is cited to make one a citizen then they are not natural born, as in what the founders sought to establish for the safety of the Republic, child born to two United States Citizens on United Sattes soil or U.S. protectorate soil.
Additionally, going back to the established means in effect in the Founders’ day, a person received their name and rights through their father. But you want to ignore that, apparently. It does however aid in understanding why a natural born must have a United States citizen father, to avoid exactly what Obama has admitted to, citizenship under the Crown at birth thus subject to/of the crown.