Speaking of the 2- sided argument, often 3-4 sides as it is now, I do think that to cure this problem, we can address it in the hopefully coming Convention of the States.
The entire basis/purpose/need for the “natural born” wording was to prevent foreign powers (british and French) from taking advantage of our open elections and exploiting the rules.
That fear was somewhat justified largely because of the mood of the time and the fight for independence still warm.
Understanding that, it would be a real stretch to think that a child born of a natural born American was some sort of security threat.
This is a major part of the argument against your accusations.
In view of the fact that women now have constitutionally equal legal standing, the Vatel view that citizenship has to come from the father is totally moot. Couple that with the fact that this sort of citizenship transference from a American parent to a foreign born child due purely to the place and time, could not be a security issue, and you have the basis of my understanding.
It’s better for you that you understand my point, yet continue to disagree and not dismiss me out of hand, because I am not alone in this. Thus far I see no inkling of understanding.