You still aren't appreciating the difference between forced subjugation and citizenship. The former is based on Monarchy, the latter is based on natural law. If I recall correctly, you are one of those people that often cite the opinions of some "authority". (argumentum ad verecundiam.)
Well here you go. Note what this Heritage Foundation posting has to say about this. Note also the date precedes Obama's election by two years.
And if you want this opinion bolstered by other highly thought of conservative Scholar, here you go again.
The Supreme Court, in its 6-2 decision that has not been overturned in 115 years went on to say: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”
None of the major conservative legal foundations or law firms and none of the conservative legal scholars who regularly argue originalist/textualist/strict constructionist positions before the US Supreme Court (such as Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43 former Solicitor Generals) has represented a Petitioner in an Obama eligibility appeal nor have they submitted any amicus briefs in support of the appellants in any of those “Obama is ineligible” appeals. That includes the Heritage Foundation.