You are deliberately misunderstanding (I can't quite credit that you are ignorant enough to be really misunderstanding). Indian tribes were considered akin to separate nations, as indicated in the Treaty of Fort Pitt 1778 "the United States do engage to guarantee to the aforesaid nation of Delawares, and their heirs, all their territorial rights in the fullest and most ample manner, as it hath been bounded by former treaties..." So Indians were considered to be born in their respective Indian nations, not in the United States.
The Military base is incidental, it is the born of two citizen parents that is the salient point.
That is your contention, that because the facts about McCain were included, those facts were the criteria. As if a resolution saying "Mr. Jones, born in Kansas, is an American citizen." Does that mean that American citizens can only be born in Kansas? No. Show me the law where the criteria are explicitly stated for two citizen parents and I might believe you. But you can't.
Indians sovereign nations? Like Britain or France? What's to understand? They held allegiance to another government, therefore they could not be "natural born citizens" even when they were born here. Again, you reinforce my point.
That is your contention, that because the facts about McCain were included, those facts were the criteria. As if a resolution saying "Mr. Jones, born in Kansas, is an American citizen." Does that mean that American citizens can only be born in Kansas? No. Show me the law where the criteria are explicitly stated for two citizen parents and I might believe you. But you can't.
Using your logic, one would conclude that if a criminal is hanged for killing a man named "peter", we must conclude that only those who kill a "peter" can therefore be hanged. You are confusing a subset with an overall set. Usage of the term "military base" is implicitly understood to count as "American Territory." It is a subset which implies the larger set.
You are likewise having difficulty dealing with something axiomatic. (Understanding is inherent in Context.) The lack of detail in describing what is a "natural born citizen" is somehow being asserted as proof that the term was ambiguous in 1787. This notion overlooks the fact that other than "Treason", few words are defined by the U.S. Constitution. Even so, context can define with sufficient examples of history and usage. Look how Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Citizenship Statute in 1779:
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”
Should he have wanted to use the theory of jus soli, he could merely have written : "Anyone born here is a citizen." It would certainly have saved him ink and time. That he did not indicates a specific rejection of this principle.