You can't have it both ways, one way having Wong Kim Ark using the 14th amendment to hold that anchor babies are "natural born citizens" for presidential qualification purposes, and the other way that no US Court has heard the issue.
I think the issue has never been before the Court, and that it is plain error to read Wong Kim Ark for the proposition that anchor babies are constitutionally qualified. But you opened with the remark that dual citizenship is irrelevant to the question of constitutional qualification, which strikes me as an entrenched position on the other side.
Anyway, I agree that the Courts won't hear the issue. I also predicted that Congress would shirk ITS constitutional duty of challenging and deciding qualifications, by pretending the issue was already decided (by magic, I suppose) at the time the electoral votes are counted.
I think the issue has never been before the Court, and that it is plain error to read Wong Kim Ark for the proposition that anchor babies are constitutionally qualified. But you opened with the remark that dual citizenship is irrelevant to the question of constitutional qualification, which strikes me as an entrenched position on the other side.
"You can't have it both ways . . . . " I don't know why not. I am a real Constitutional Lawyer, admitted to practice before the U S Supreme Court and having argued Supreme Court cases; I get paid lots to render opinions based on my reading of existing cases, statutes, and other law; no doubt in my mind that if and when asked, the Supreme Court is going to hold that born in the USA is sufficient; but still hypothetical in that the Court has not yet been asked that precise question.
I don't know many lawyers that would agree with your proposition that anchor babies are not constitutionally qualified; and no I don't think dual citizenship is necessarily relevant to Natural Born status. Lots of Natural Born Citizens are dual citizens.
As set out below, lots of the Euro countries confer citizenship by right of birth on descendants of citizens who are citizens of other countries--there are lots of dual citizens in the US who don't know they are dual citizens.
My view is an entrenched position only in the sense that I think my opinion on the subject is correct. All these contrary views expressed here show a real lack of understanding of how the Supreme Court operates and decides cases.
But there is a real bottom line here and it is that Obama was born in Kenya, pretty clearly under circumstances in which he was not even a citizen at birth, and there is no way he is a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility question.