Just a question in principle: Is there need for case law in a first instance? Further, doesn't the applicable definition derive from the time the law at issue was adopted? Else we are in the land of "living Constitution."
This is how the system works.
Learn the system before you argue, OK?
“Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS meant “Citizen at the Moment of Birth” -—
However, Congress has changed the rules, more than once, as to which New Borns qualify, and which do not.
“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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
Does it matter that Barry seems to have attended college as a foreign student and lived in foreign student housing?