The Fourteen Amendment doesn’t affect the NBC requirement because the latter doesn’t state that the president much be a “citizen”. It states that he or she must be a “natural born citizen”. Even you said the anchor babies of illegal aliens couldn’t be president. So you are contradicting yourself. [Anchor babies, as matters stand, are “citizens”.] You are interjecting a personal requirement of ‘both parents being legal’ which is illogical. Either NBC means ‘native born of citizen-parentS’, or it means ‘citizen’ - and the kids of illegal aliens are just as A-Okay as Obama (in your book).
First, as I stated elsewhere, there may be an argument under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens because they are not here legally. But such an argument would not apply to someone born of a U.S. citizen in the U.S.
Second, even if that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is wrong, you are again engaging in raw judicial acitivism by trying to rewrite the 14th to mean something other than what it's plain language says. If the 14th was drafted poorly enough to make the child of an illegal alien eligible to be President, then the solution is to amend the Constitution, not to rewrite an Amendment you don't like via subjective interpretations. I believe Arizona is looking at that option right now, and I absolutely support that effort.
Go check with your "Constitutional scholars". I've litigated plenty of cases, made plenty of Constitutional arguments. The argument that a child born of a U.S. parent, in the United States is eligible to be President isn't even close. It would win 9-0 in the Supreme Court. The children of illegal immigrants, I don't know because there is at least that "subject to" argument out there.
Now whether Obama himself actually meets the definition, whether he really was born in the U.S., is an entirely different question. It presents a factual rather than legal issue. But on the law, it's not even close.