It's my sense, from your recent posts, that you at least question the extension of the WKA decision to a finding of NBC, for anybody born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
In light of that sense, I wonder if you think WKA was correctly decided as to citizenship.
I think the WKA holding has been the subject of some amount of contention, at least to the extent the decision underpins citizenship of anchor babies. As for the decision upholding NBC status, I think Obama is the first opportunity presented to probe the issue, and Congress just blew it off with nary a remark. By silence, it adopted the position that WKA is an NBC decision. "Born on US soil" is enough, dual citizenship at birth is not a barrier.
I would say that a small fraction of the public is aware that Obama was a dual citizen at birth; and to the extent the public is aware, many of them reject the NBC requirement anyway, and would find any naturalized person to be eligible. Heck, I bet there is a significant number who would admit a foreigner to the office, that's how far gone "patriotism" is in this once-fine land.
I think WKA is correct in that someone born in the USA of parents living here IAW US law is a natural born citizen. I think WKA opened up the idea that someone born of folks passing thru are also NBCs, which I think goes too far. As the dissent noted, someone born of a tourist in the USA should not be eligible for President.
I think the 14th Amendment has been misconstrued to say anyone born in the US is a citizen. Someone here illegally is not acting under the jurisdiction of the US, and should not be a citizen. However, I doubt either the courts or elections would support my view on this.