‘...the SCOTUS precedent: “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”’
__
Of course, if that were a SCOTUS precedent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
By all means, let's have just such a conversation. Nationally.
Any definition of Natural Born that doesn't act to reinforce the likelihood that the presidential aspirant has loyalty to, and loyalty ONLY TO the US is a flawed definition, no matter how many times Jus Soli adherents posit to the contrary.
It flies in the face not only of the cautionary words of the Founders (Paine, Jay et al) but of logic itself.
“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 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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
That is a part of the holding in a unanimous SCOTUS ruling that has never been overturned.
Born on US sovereign soil to parents who are themselves citizens represents the Gold Standard in citizenship as applies to, and only to eligibility to assume the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. No person who can claim dual citizenship should be legally eligible to aspire to our nation's highest office. It's a matter of presumed undivided loyalty.
Notice that the relevant language in Minor states "were natives, or natural-born citizens" rather than "include." Lawyers and judges are very, very careful about each and every word that they pen when handing down a ruling.
You can bet that this wording was intentional and is a good example of judicial restraint.