Any child born anywhere inside the British Empire regardless of parentage was considered a British subject. British common law does not translate into U.S. law. And citing dictum from Wong v. U.S. does not make your point; the case did not settle the natural born citizen issue.
Correct. The British head of state was/is a hereditary ruler who was interested in expanding his realm by including as many new subjects as possible; we, however, have a HoS who is an elected president—an office which must not be filled by a person with any allegiance to any foreign power.
In fact, if you read all of the decision it spends a great deal of time deciding that the British common law DOES translate to US common law on this matter, and does settle the natural born citizen issue. It says precisely what you just said it didn't.
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."