Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. No legal or Constitutional scholar believes such is the case. There is no settled law on the definition of natural-born citizen. To imply that the law is settled is either intentionally misleading or ignorant.
Justice Gray, in the majority opinion on Wong Kim Ark, quoted a previous Supreme Court decision on Minor v. Happersett.
" 'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."By citing Minor, which refers to the Law of Nations, Justice Gray reaffirms the notion that there is only once class of citizens who are without a doubt natural-born citizens. The Law of Nations defines a natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). The natural-born status of all other citizens is in doubt and has been left unresolved by the SCOTUS.
In the Ark decision, Justice Gray also quotes English common law, which defines anyone born within the realm as a natural-born subject, not as support for the ruling in Wong Kim Ark but rather to compare and contrast the various internationally-recognized historical definitions of natural-born. He further refers to the historical concept of a person's political status versus civil status noting that the two are distinctly separate by definition but can overlap in practice.
Additionally, by using three different labels for citizenship (natural-born citizen, citizen, naturalized citizen) the language of the Constitution inherently identifies three entities, granted those entities may overlap in some cases. If there were no difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen, why distinguish a different standard for President?
Furthermore, I would point out that the U.S. Foreign Affairs manual stipulates the following:
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.Since the U.S. State Department is unsure whether or not a group of citizens qualifies as natural-born, but acknowledges them as citizens who were not naturalized, then, by definition, that indicates that there are possibly three classes of citizens. (Two absolute classes: natural-born U.S. citizen and naturalized U.S. citizen; One vague class: U.S. citizen, possibly natural-born.)
Since there is no settled law, we need a Supreme Court decision to answer these questions.
Here's my analogy regarding the difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen. All managers are employees of a company, but not all employees are managers. There's a higher requirement to become a manager and a greater assigned responsibility to hold that position. Both employees and managers are entitled to the benefits conferred upon employees by the company and are bound by the company's rules and policies. The designation of employee is equivalent to one's civil status - being bound by a set of rules and eligible to the benefits of employment. The designation of manager is equivalent to one's political status - owing a greater responsibility to the company's business objectives and goals.
So, in short, perhaps the founding fathers intended the label natural-born citizen to be more of a political distinction than a civil distinction. There really is no civil distinction between a natural-born citizen, a citizen, and a naturalized citizen because all are entitled to the same protection under the law. There is however a political distinction between a natural born citizen and every other citizen in that only the former can be president.
Ping to comment #720.
Excellent roundup of citations.
The critical point here though is that the distinction is unestablished and the law is unclear. SCOTUS should clarify the meaning no doubt. But lacking that the effective definition is what the public will accept, and they have accepted his qualification without complaint, save from a tiny minority.
And as for SCOTUS, you have the fact that he is already the sitting President. Should SCOTUS address the issue, even after Obama leaves office, it would have to consider not only the status quo but the precedent (and not all precedents are decisions). The odds that SCOTUS would adopt a restrictive reading of “natural born” that would exclude either a sitting President or one who has already served are very slim.
This line of argument is therefore quixotic at best.