This relies extensively on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. and Justice Gray limited the applicability of the ruling by stating "the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion."
We already know Obama doesn't meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as defined by the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Congressional Record. So the most of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't apply.
Section 305 - ... A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30th, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
Now this is interesting in that this law declares that those born in the U.S. must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. in order to be considered citizens. But that same requirement is missing for those born in the states of Hawaii and Alaska. There is no "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement for birthright citizenship in those two states at all.
Hmmm...
Republic of Hawaii.