Not everybody born in the US was a US citizen, but some or most of those particular people, legally speaking, actually were. Even if the State Department denied the fact.
This is according to the ancient rule of citizenship which the Court (accurately) told us had always applied.
People who were NOT US citizens included:
There's an argument to be made for children of illegal aliens and even of temporary visitors as well.
I think there's actually at least SOME argument to be made against people here on temporary visas. I think the argument is a weak one and would likely not stand. But I think there's enough wiggle-room in Wong Kim Ark that the argument could at least be MADE.
There is no longer any such wiggle room when it comes to the children of aliens who actually reside here.
And in Obama's case, he had a citizen mother. So there's no argument there. That's plenty. Like it or not, he's a natural born citizen.
Jeff, the U.S. Secretaries of State explicitly cited the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in determining those men weren't U.S. citizens even though born in the U.S.
The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.
And in Obama's case, he had a citizen mother. So there's no argument there.
There actually is no law that supports your assertion. U.S. law covers derivative citizenship to those born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent but the requirement for birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S. is either that they are not subject to a foreign power at birth, or that their alien parent(s) was/were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their birth.
The circumstances of Obama's birth fit neither of those criteria.