The cases you cite do not define natural born citizen. And in particular, I’m having a hard time understanding why you would cite the Indiana case. It clearly states that WKA did NOT define natural born citizen, and then directly contradicted that by citing WKA as a reason to find that Obama is a natural born citizen. That was a kangaroo court, plain and simple.
The only SCOTUS case that defines Constitutional natural born citizen is Minor v. Happersett: born in US to 2 US citizen parents.
And Rogers unwittingly gave us a Supreme Court precedent that specifically cites Minor v. Happersett for defining presidential eligibility but does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark is NOT the legal precedent and Ankney knew it. They only used it to create a justification to punt the plaintiffs arguments as inconclusive. The meat of their dismissal of the case was only by virtue that the governor of Indiana could not be legally obligated to vet presidential candidates. The Ankeny decision did NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen.