Fair enough. Mr. Fantasy made a long post about the people you are "engaged with," and you said you agreed with every word, so you can see why I took it personally.
It's true I don't believe the Founders intented foreign citizens to give birth to natural born citizens without having gone through the naturalization process themselves, and it's true I believe the purpose of that intent was to prevent someone with questionable loyalties from holding office.
I don't claim to know for sure what the Founders intended, but the lengthy reasoning in Wong Kim Ark has convinced me that if they intended to close off that possibility, they did a lousy job of it. And since I don't generally think they did a lousy job, I suspect they were okay with the scenario you describe.
More to the point, the people we entrust with figuring out what they intended--the Supreme Court and other judges--seem to me to have come down pretty clearly on the "born here = NBC" side.
That's part of the problem.
The Founders believed that certain laws affected all nations equally and these laws were not within the power of man or man's government to change.
There is some contention as to if a particular version was used or several were used to come to a consensus, but most generic name for these laws is the Law of Nations.
Are you familiar with the Law of Nations concept?
Which doesn't make it true, It just makes it what gets enforced. Roe v Wade is also in that category.
I would further point out that Minor v Happersett was unanimous. Regardless of what you think the decision means, one thing can be ascertained from it with great confidence. All the Judges were in agreement on the conclusion, and it therefore has a better probability of being correct than a non-unanimous decision.
Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, was a 5-2 decision, with Justice Mckenna not taking part in the decision. Of the 5 member majority, only one was a Southern Democrat. (and by his subsequent decisions, appears to sympathize with Republicans) The two opposing Judges were Democrats.
It is not difficult to imagine that politics played more of a role in their decision than did actual law.