[philman_36]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark was a naturalization case. You do know that, don't you?
And once again you leave out important parts...
...“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”...In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
You have to look at those cases to understand what the judge is getting at.

Continuing...
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
Well let's just look at what Chief Justice Waite had to say...
Minor v. Happersett
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

I'm no worm and I don't wiggle.

[Mr Rogers]

I did NOT leave out the important parts. They cite dozens of cases, most of which YOU are leaving out, as you should - the full quote would run a half dozen pages of text.

Minor does NOT say one must be born of two citizen parents to be a NBC. It says that of such a person there can be no doubt - which says, correctly, that in the 1870s some still doubted those born of one or two alien parents.

In WKA, they use the analogous ‘natural born subject’ to delve into the meaning of NBC, and conclude that common law says a NBS includes those born of alien parents legally present, and thus they assume NBC includes the same, and thus WKA would be considered a NBC - which was NOT in their specific ruling, but was the inescapable conclusion of their argument - as the dissent noted.

It is dishonest to Pretend M v H says there must be two citizen parents for someone to be a NBC, and even more dishonest to pretend that WKA (in the 1890s) did not go beyond M v H.

You cannot cherry-pick a single phrase from entire paragraphs and use that as your basis, when the rest of the paragraph contradicts your point.

The full WKA decision can be found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html