The point made in WKA is that the Founder’s understanding of what NBC meant was determined by how they understood natural born subject - and all agree that NBS included the children of aliens. Thus, by original intent, a NBC includes the child of alien parents.
However, it could be argued that under the rules discussed in WKA, the parents had to be domiciled here legally, and not at the beckoning of a foreign government. Argued thus, then WKA would support the idea that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. However, I’ve never heard of a birther making that point in court. If they tried it instead of ignoring WKA, they MIGHT have better results.
If I was arguing the appeal of the Georgia decision, I’d point out that Ankeny is based on WKA, and that WKA included domicile and not being here at the request of a foreign government as critical parts of the meaning, and that the Georgia judge was thus misapplying the law.
That's a false assumption.
The Founders understood the concept of natural born SUBJECT all too well, and nowhere have you shown they agreed that the same criteria for a natural born British subject was to be applied to a natural born American citizen.
Your misreading what WKA says. It doesn't say this at all. It says that the birth provision of the 14th amendment needs to be understood "in light of" common law. NBC, it says, was excluded from the 14th amendment in a unanimous decision. It cited that decision for the definition of NBC and then affirmed that the holding is based on a strict combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis. The only reason Gray explores NBS is to define the citizenship provision of the amendment, which he concludes only applies to former slaves and resident aliens.
Almost agreed.
Obama's claimed father was, in British terminology, a foreigner but not an alien friend. In US terminology, he was a temporary visitor on a time-limited visa, not a permanent legal resident. Unlike the parents of Wong Kim Ark, who were alien friends/permanent legal residents.
The disagreement is that there's anything at all in WKA that even hints that Justice Gray intended to base the definition of natural born citizen on natural born subject. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that his intent was to equate natural born subject with citizen, and thereby to imply (but not directly assert) that "natural born citizen" is analogous to subject born (which, unlike the general term natural born subject excluded anyone whose parents weren't NBS.)