The Indiana Court asserted a very broad rule. I believe the Court got the law wrong (that happens frequently), but it said this:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens." FN15FN15 - We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
What they're doing is trying to confuse the issue and make a statement in support of a belief without actually committing themselves to making a definitive statement about Obama. Just in setting up their argument for natural born citizenship, they purposely misconstrued the plaintiff's argument.
"As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President‟s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate‟ that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”"
... "The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”"
The plaintiffs didn't make a 'different' legal argument, they made several legal arguments. Evidently the court has amnesia because only a couple of pages earlier in the same decision, they said ...
"Plaintiffs raise nine issues ..." and "Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: ... (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”"
So, by the time you understand that the plaintiffs DID make an argument that Obama wasn't born within any of the 50 United States, it's hard to reconcile that the court could rule him to be a natural born citizen on the basis of being born 'within the borders of the United States' when there's no legal proof to support this part of the requirement.
Further, the court seems to think that being 'born in the allegiance of the United States' simply means being born within the borders, but that's not what the Constitution says. Remember, the preamble says, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ..." This is significant because it doesn't promise membership to the "Union" of the United States on the basis of being born within the borders, but by being born to one of the People of the United States. 'Our posterity' is a reference to the children of those people ... IOW, this is recognizing that the People of the United States are those who declared Independence from England and the children of those people ... its citizens.
This is also what Wong Kim Ark was referring to when it cited the dicta about being born in the allegiance to the United States. It was acknowledging that at the founding of this country, you could be born within the borders of the United States and still be considered a 'natural-born British subject' OR you could be born a 'natural-born citizen' depending on whether your allegiance was to the United States or England. The children of such persons naturally follow the citizenship status of the parents.
What Justice Gray had to do was figure out if the 14th amendment was able to override natural allegiance the parents, and he built a case around English common law, but only to the point of saying that the 14th amendment followed the English principal of birth on the country's soil ... which is still debatable because there are exceptions allowed through the subject clause in the 14th amendment. Regardless, WKA did not redefine Minor's definition of natural born citizen ... which it cited ... "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, ..." The Indiana Appeals Court either failed to read this or intentionally avoided it, yet they acknowledged that the WKA decision did NOT declare its plaintiff to be a natural born citizen. This leaves rational people scratching their heads wondering how the Hoosier Hillbillies could then divine so-called guidance on what a natural born citizen is OUTSIDE of the very specific definition that was cited by the same case. They were not only wrong, but they were badly wrong.