(The Supreme Court has held that an individual born in the United States is a “natural born citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents.)
Cute the Supreme Court case.
Cite
28 US 99
Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligenance of the sovereign.
The case describes 2 exceptions: children born of ambassadors and children born of occupying soldiers.
Concurring Dred Scott opinion-
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen". It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth.
The very case you cite Wong Kim Ark permits citizenship to an individual solely virtue of the locus of the subject of parturition, and makes no distinction for "natural born", as your inference of a distinction is chimeric.
He is just making stuff up.