The Supreme Court had two good chances after the 14th amemdent was passed to say that it redefined natural born citizenship. They did not. Minor v. Happersett says you have to look outside of the constitution for a definition and Wong Kim Ark cited this same passage. Minor proceeds to give a definition for which there is NO doubt: "... all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." How can you get anymore practical than that??
continue reading... "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Currently, all persons born in the US are given citizenship including "anchor babies" whether we think it is right or not, that is the law. The case you cited specifically defines 2 types of citizen. Naturalized and natural born. They just balk when it comes to answering whether children of foreigners get the natural born status, but that precedent has long since been answered.
Who falls into such an area, and how was it framed? Returning to Minor "as to these there have been doubts, but never as to the first," with the first being born of the soil and born of citizen parents. Obama was born to a father who was not even a resident alien. There are doubts about Obama that remain unresolved.