The court was quite clear in the Kim Wong case that he had ALL the same rights as any other citizen. Both this case and the Arthur precedent are totally against you.
But more importantly, being President of the US is NOT a right. It's a privilege, one created and granted by the Constitution. Similarly, the right to vote is actually a privilege granted by the Constitution. And there is no right to vote for President, not even to vote for Presidential electors. The Constitution grants the States the power to choose Presidential electors in whatever manner the State legislature specifies by law—which does not have to involve citizens (or anyone else) voting.
As for the "Arthur precedent," there is no such thing. Without a court decision, there is no legal precedent. Without the public and Congress knowingly allowing Arthur to serve in spite of the fact his father was a British subject, there is no de facto precedent, either. And we know beyond any reasonable doubt that neither the public nor Congress knew about Arthur's father not being a citizen, because of an article published in The American Law Review in 1884, while Arthur was President.
The article was written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review. The article was entitled "ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?", and was an in depth discussion and review of the legalities of US citizenship.
The article makes a compelling case that "natural born citizen" means exactly what de Vattel meant by "les naturels, ou indigene": persons born on the soil of a nation both of whose parents were citizens of that same nation. But here's the point: There is no way the article could have been written, or published by the American Law Review, while the current sitting President is shown by the article to clearly fail the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, unless it was not generally known that such was the case. No way in Dante's Inferno could any such thing have happened, especially not in 1884!
You are utterly refuted.