"This encompassed many classes of individuals beyond those described."
But several SCOTUS rulings cited on this thread disagree, or at least disagree with the claim that Obama is not a citizen on the basis of his father's citizenship status alone. We can argue that a SCOTUS ruling was wrong or misguided, but we cannot arbitrarily wave them away. Perhaps, had I been on the SCOTUS for Wong Kim Ark I would have agreed with the dissenting minority, or perhaps not. I know for sure that I would have been on the other side of Roe v. Wade. That doesn't and won't change the law of the land.
Maybe there should be a law - or better yet, a Constitutional Amendment, since such a law would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge - to define in no uncertain terms who is eligible to be President, since the definition we have now has apparently lost clarity.
Maybe you or I can't, but the Supreme Court can, by ignoring earlier rulings as if they didn't exist, as the Court did to Elk v. Wilkins when ruling in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case. They can just make it up. This notion of making up law out of thin air may help decide tough cases, but it was a bad practice then and it remains a bad practice today, because it brings untold and unforeseen results that are not well grounded in law, like "anchor babies".