DNA can prove who your father is. It cannot prove where you are born. It doesn't get much more "natural" than nature. (The word "Nature" , "Natural" and "Nation" are derived from the same root word, which means "of birth." Native, Nativity, and Natal are other permutations of the same root. )
Jus Soli is silly. England adopted it to cement Scotland into the United Kingdom. It may be more practical for an Island nation where people seldom get in that don't belong there, but for a nation of our size, pegging citizenship to the fact you happened to be inside our borders is just silly.
I tend to agree.
Let me give you my example and this is not a hypothetical.
Indonesia does not recognize Jus Soli citizenship. Children born of foreigners in Indonesia are not considered Citizens of Indonesia.
So, if a mother and father both American citizens have a child born to them in Indonesia, does that child have a natural connection and allegiance to Indonesia serving to make the child a Natural Born Citizen of Indonesia despite their refusal to consider the child one of their own, or is the child's natural allegiance to the nationality of the parents, making the child a Natural Born Citizen of their country? Or is the child born stateless, with no right or residence, protection and nurture from any society or nation, and without the right to obtain documentation and passport from anywhere by natural right?
Does the country of the parents' birth have the sovereign right to extend its protection and nurture to the children of its citizens as Natural Born Citizens if that is the wish of the polity?
Let's end it here for now and see where the discussion goes.