namely, 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.[emphasis added]
Ummm, you missed an important factor in the decision in that permanent domicil and residence was necessary in order to meet the subject clause of the 14th amendment (see bolded part above). Gray spent quite a bit of the WKA decision on domicil and residence. Gray also distinguished 14th amendment citizenship as being different from natural born citizenship. The former, he said, is defined by the Constitution, while the latter is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. That latter definition was supplied in the Minor v. Happerset decision and affirmed in WKA, that a child born in the country to citizen parents was a citizen. The Minor decision rejected Virginia Minor's claim of 14th amendment citizenship because she was already a natural born citizen. Gray further affirms this by explaining that the Supreme Court was committed to the idea that the 14th amendment does not apply to those who are born in the country to citizens.
Gray also distinguished 14th amendment citizenship as being different from natural born citizenship. The former, he said, is defined by the Constitution, while the latter is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
I don't see Gray saying the two types are different, rather he says [emphasis added to several quotes]
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "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.
In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,
you missed an important factor in the decision in that permanent domicil and residence was necessary in order to meet the subject clause of the 14th amendment (see bolded part above).
The part you bolded does not invalidate what I said to org.whodat, nor does it invalidate Marco Rubio's natural born status, as his parents were domiciled in the US. I also found discussion in the case that would suggest even that isn't necessary, and that Gray was merely describing the situation for this case in your quote. Note my emphasis:
the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.The exceptions are listed. Does Rubio fall under any of these? No.