The principle asserted by Collins, which essentially considers citizenship at birth to be solely patrilineal (except in the case of an illegitimate child), is archaic, having been superseded several times by successive US statutes. The same holds for Collins' outright dismissal of any notion of dual (or multiple) citizenship at birth; the fact is that American law has since recognized that some persons are categorized as such. And his idea that descendants of Chinese immigrants born in the US can never be citizens at birth was reversed by a SCOTUS decision in the 1890s which granted citizenship to such persons based upon the 14th Amendment.
The specific subject of POTUS eligibility is not even addressed in Collins' article, as it did not seem to be a concern of his, despite the fact that Arthur - the president, coincidentally, at the time the article was written - would seemingly not qualify for the presidency under Collins' doctrine, given what we now know about Arthur's father's British citizenship status at the time of Arthur's birth.
My judgment on this topic is somewhat clouded by the fact that I would very much appreciate the opportunity to argue the issue to the Supreme Court.
The "natural born" requirement has its roots in ancient Common Law and Continental and Roman Law doctrines. There is in fact, significant Common Law authority on the issue which in my view is likely to be viewed as controlling.
As a theoretical proposition, there is significant support for the Father citizen rule and perhaps even for a Two Parent rule. And I don't think subsequent US Citizenship statutes would necessarily overrule these doctrines.
However I am also convinced that in Obama's case, even though you ought to be able to find him ineligible, if the Court concludes he was born in the US, he is almost certainly likely to win. And, on the other hand, if the Court concludes he was born in Mombasa, he is almost certainly likely to lose.
There are in fact also reasons to examine the outcome on the born in the USA facts.
Consider this hypothetical. A current citizen of the US was born in the US. Both parents are US Citizens. The paternal Grandfather was an immigrant and naturalized US Citizen. However under the law of the country of his origin, the current person is also a citizen of that country. Is there an argument the current person is not eligible to serve as President? If so, having reached a signficant age of seniority, is such an argument enhanced by the fact that the current person also holds a Passport from the country of his grandfather's origin?
And his idea that descendants of Chinese immigrants born in the US can never be citizens at birth was reversed by a SCOTUS decision in the 1890s which granted citizenship to such persons based upon the 14th Amendment.
And who was on that Supreme Court? Justice Gray who was appointed by the later found to be ineligible Arthur.
Wong Kim Arc
http://fortheconstitution.com/index.php/blog/show/WROTNOWSKI-APPLICATION-REFERRED-TO-FULL-COURT-BY-JUSTICE-SCALIA-—DISTRIBUTED-FOR-CONFEREN.html