I didn't "address the issue" because the issue as you frame it is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is how the law is interpreted contemporaneously.
Also, the Founders lived in a day LONG before the 14th Amendment and the case law that sprang from the 14th Amendment.
I'll repeat my statement, until such a time that the Court rules on the central legal question (which isn't not a discussion in dicta) on what difference (if any) there are between anchor babies and natural-born citizens, there won't be any difference between those two terms. Citizen at birth and natural-born citizen are, in the context of today's legal reality, completely interchangeable terms.
Wow. So the 14th Amendment was about erasing the distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" in the Constitution, and granting citizenship to the offsping of criminal aliens? I thought it was about extending citizenship to freed negro slaves.
Now I am not a lawyer so I don't know how to read plain words and discover in them things they do not say. It does seem to me though that in every legal contest, fifty percent of the lawyers are wrong. I would submit that they are often knowingly so but argue for either financial or political reasons. They sometimes prevail too, so we end up with things like Wickard and this ridiculous assertion that anchor babies or the son a Marxist foreigner might be "natural born".