They certainly have. But, those persons must be considered "naturalized at birth", because Congress has no delegated power to make anyone a citizen, except through a "uniform rule of Naturalization.
Your "Wong Kim Ark" decision contains the following language:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle
So they do make a distinction between a natural born child of a citizen, and the child of an alien, born in the country. Add in naturalized citizens, and you have three classes of citizens. BTW, that is the only place in the entire decision, where the words "natural born" are used. The case is about citizenship, and retention thereof, not natural born citizenship. There essentially have been no cases involving "natural born" verses "native born but not "natural born"
This is not surprising, because the only distinction between the two , is eligibility to the Office of President. Thus, Chester Arthur had to hide the fact that his father was not a citizen, *at the time Chester was born*. That made him native born, but not natural born.
So they do make a distinction between a natural born child of a citizen, and the child of an alien, born in the country.
I read it the opposite, there is a distinction without a difference in law. they are saying that these two situations, using 'natural born' in the same sense as Blackstone and English common law - see previous cites - lead to equivalent outcomes in citizenship status. Two situations: Child A born in the US to alien parents; Child B born in the US to citizen parents. They are saying a child A of alien parents IS AS MUCH A CITIZEN as the Child B born to US citizen parents. They are saying there is NO distinction under the law if they are born in the US. If there is to be no distinction under the law, then the child of aliens are equally 'natural born' citizens as those born here of US citizens. The common-law term of art was 'natural-born' to describe those who acquired their status at birth. The reason it wasnt applied to the child of aliens in the above quote is that it would appear to imply the conclusion in stating the argument.
It's valid to say that Kim ruling did not EXPLICITLY call him natural-born citizen, but they didnt need to, that wasnt the topic at hand. However, cite after cite in the ruling referencing English common law takes you back to a very clear and common theme: English common law definition of "natural-born subject" was born in the realm, ie, on the soil. It would be contradictory indeed to apply English common law understanding of "under the jurisdiction" to include for example Obama as a "citizen at birth" but exclude him from "natural-born citizen", since 'natural-born' related to that citizenship by soil concept.
I also have cited Ted Olson's brief which covered this matter as well:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
There essentially have been no cases involving "natural born" verses "native born but not "natural born" - And there never will be such cases because there is no distinction in the law, due to the 14th.