Most of it is about English "natural born subjects".
Thought I'd checked that spelling of Gray. Well no matter, I did read it. I'm tired of being told I didn't read it, or didn't comprehend what I'd read.
But it's still dicta. It's also mostly about English common law, which in turn is about what it takes to be a Natural Born Subject. Americans are not subjects. It's in the interest of the King to have more subjects, so the criteria reflects that. Americans are the sovereigns, and it may not be in their best interest to have additional sovereigns, with possible split loyalties. Plus the dicta also contains citation to and a quote from Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
Thus defining "natural born citizens", not "natural born subjects", as "all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens"
Is it possible to be both citizen and sovereign?
Seems to me that the only way that works out is anarchy.