My only sin is reading and applying the plain text of the 14th Amendment as written. Maybe you can argue that's wrong, but it is hardly disingenuous. My personal opinion is that the 14th Amendent wasn't drafted that well, and needs to be amended.
The thing about legal arguments is that to be correct, they must be consistent. One horrible problem with the parental citizenship issue, or the idea that you can't be a natural born citizen of the U.S. if you're also considered a citizen under the laws of another country, is that it gives other countries a veto power over who may become President. All they have to do is adopt some screwy citizenship law to disqualify a particular candidate.
Now, I think one way around that is that the U.S. would only consider someone to be a citizen of another nation if the U.S. laws of citizenship as applied to that situation would make someone a citizen of that country. I think under that test, so-called dual-citizenship would be rare, and couldn't be manipulated by other countries trying to screw with our elections. Right now, that isn't the law here, and U.S. law is incredibly silent upon the meaning/effect of a U.S. citizen also being considered a citizen of another country.
Personally, I think obtaining a passport in the name of another country, which is a pretty good measurement of citizenship, should operate to divest someone of U.S. citizenship. But that's a bit of a different issue.
The 1872 Supreme Court did not have trouble understanding Congressman Bingham or Senator Howard, or did Justice Gray in 1898 for that matter. He just flippantly said it was irrelevant in his Wong Kim Ark opinion. They had no problem understanding the meaning and intent of the clause "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." written in the 14th Amendment.