Point 1. The adjective "natural" in the phrase "natural born Citizen" must not be superfluous and without contributing further significant restrictive meaning to the phrase it modifies, therefore a natural born Citizen must be a significantly restricted subset of born citizen (citizen at birth). Clearly the two phrases (citizen at birth and natural born Citizen) must mean significantly different things with the latter being a restrictive subset of the former. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the deliberate, articulate elegance of the founders who meticulously crafted the Constitution.
Point 2. Three inherent characteristics at birth are generally considered to contribute to citizenship and to one's natural allegiances, these being: the citizenship of one's father, the citizenship of one's mother and the land of one's birth. The founders' explicit stated purpose of restricting the presidency to only natural born Citizens was to provide a strong check to prevent the republic from falling prey to a presidency (and military) subverted by foreign influence and intrigue. It strains all logic and common sense to beyond credulity to suggest that the founders would believe that a strong check would be provided by requiring just one of these characteristics (the least restrictive combination) rather than all three (the most restrictive combination).
But, I will suggest again that you find appropriate examples. You aren't going to get anywhere suggesting that folks like McCain or Cruz are tools of foreign governments. And, to be honest with you, I don't think it's likely that you'll ever find a useful example. Voters and their electors have no intention of choosing anyone with real ties to foreign governments. There is no real danger. Prince Charles isn't going to run for president.
But, be patient - maybe a scary candidate will come along someday. And, then, people might listen. Good job!!