To the writers you quote, an individual who met your qualification (1), but not (2) would not be a citizen. This is a concept of citizenship that has been rejected in this country - via statute, case-law, and understanding of the Fourteenth amendment - for well over 100 years.
That has no bearing upon the meaning of the United States Constitution. It is always to stand as written. The only way to change the meaning and intentions of the Consitution is via amendment.
The British used natural law as a determining factor of citizenship. Anyone, born anywhere under a British domain was considered a British subject, just like Obama’s father.
We fought the Revolutionary War to gain our independence from Great Britain, to not be considered subjects under the Crown. By pledging allegiance to the United States, all former subjects were naturalized citizens. Dual citizenship was not an option, remember at the time we were dealing with the British.
During the War of 1812, the British were forcing American citizens into fighting for them because of the “natural born” law.
It is quite clear that allegiance was of the utmost importance. The 14th amendment was ratified after the War of 1812 where the British tried to pull the dual citizenship card.
And as for anchor babies, I don’t think they would be considered citizens at all. Their parents are not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States. They still are under the jurisdiction of their native countries, that is why they deal with their consulates while here. Like that cheesy marticular card.
The Framers did not want to emulate Britain, they wanted their laws to be based on the freedom of individuals. It was a choice to become naturalized and it still is. If it was not the case, why have the law to begin with?