Speaking of George Collins, his interpretation of 'natural born citizen' was wrong. No less a body than the U.S. Supreme Court said it was wrong.
That's because George Collins was one of the lead attorneys in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Specifically, he was the losing attorney. He argued his definition of 'natural born citizen,' the one you want to argue is correct, and the Supreme Court disagreed.
This is among the reasons why there was no discussion of any supposed 'two-citizen-parent' requirement before the election, and why over two years later, Birthers still can't find any legitimate legal scholars to back them up. Because it's not valid law. Because over a century ago, George Collins tried to make that argument before the Supreme Court, and he lost.
You asked for something published, having stated there was no mention of it anywhere before Nov 2008. You are BUSTED.
ZOT
I don’t know what definition George Collins argued for, but the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark quoted and affirmed Justice Waite’s definition from Minor v. Happersett. Of this, there’s no doubt.