[Nero Germanicus]

Justices Scalia and Thomas would disagree with you on Wong. They cited from US v Wong Kim Ark in their ruling in Miller v Albright 523 US 420 (1998): “The Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZC1.html
There is no member of the current court who believes that there is a distinction between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.

[edge919]

Justices Scalia and Thomas would disagree with you on Wong. They cited from US v Wong Kim Ark in their ruling in Miller v Albright 523 US 420 (1998): “The Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”

This says there are two "SOURCES" of citizenship, but it does NOT say that there is only one class of citizenship per each source. Under naturalization law, we know there are several classes. Under birth citizenship, the Supreme Court has pointed out at least TWO different classes.

There is no member of the current court who believes that there is a distinction between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.

This is speculation that simply isn't supported by your citation. Let's see which one of these justices is willing to overrule the unanimous decision in Minor. The Wong Kim Ark court was NOT willing to do this. And the Luria court cited Minor and NOT Ark on establishing a precedent on presidential eligibility.