What decision? I'm talking about what the 14th Amendemnt did, not any SCOTUS decision.
Right. Free persons still have to be born of citizen parents in the country in order to be natural born citizens.
You have yet to cite a single SCOTUS decision to back up this claim of yours. And no, Justice Waite did not say it, your ripping him out of context not withstanding.
The 14th amendment created citizenship at birth for persons not born to citizen parents,
Not true. The 14th Amendment did not change anything for people born free. Free persons born to free non-citizen parents were natural born citizens before the 14th Amendment was passed, and they continued to be natural born citizens afterward. The only thing the 14th Amendment changed was the citizenship status of persons born as slaves on US soil, making them equal to native persons born free. That's it.
No, they used common law to justify citizenship for the children of those persons with permanent allegiance because natural born citizenship didn't apply to WKA.
That is simply not true. Please cite where they claim natural born citizenship didn't apply to WKA.
That's simply not true. John Bingham, one of the authors of the 14th amendment, said, "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen ..." Notice, this admits that persons born in the United State of parents owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty are NOT natural born citizens. The 14th amendment therefore created citizenship at birth for these people that did not previously exist. It wasn't just slaves who benefited from the 14th amendment.
Please cite where they claim natural born citizenship didn't apply to WKA.
First in the definition of natural born citizen and second, by declaring that WKA's citizenship was established by the 14th amendment: "The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'" They're saying WKA is a citizen because as a Chinese person born in the country (there's an intersting oxymoron, by the way), acts of Congress can't trump the 14th amendment. Notice they're not saying WKA is a natural born citizen and in the summary of the decision, they repeat: "... whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." If WKA was a natural born citizen, by definition, there's no need to cite the 14th amendment.
Not true. One of the points of the 14th was to reverse the Dred Scott decision which said that blacks, slave or free, could never be citizens and had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."