Wow, if there’s a way to avoid backing up your claim with any specific evidence, you’ll find that.
Reality is my evidence. Barack Obama is the president, sworn in by a Chief Justice who expressed no qualms about his eligibility. An Indiana Court of Appeals wrote--in reference to Obama--that "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." (Is your claim that "there's NOTHING in the decision that declares Obama to be a natural born citizen" based on the fact that they didn't use "Obama" and "natural born citizen" in the same sentence?) Counter that, all you have is "they're wrong!"
But, for example, you write that
Another class of persons are those who "some authorities" consider to be citizens by virtue of birth without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Waite specifically distinguishes this class of persons from those who constitute NBCs.If he's distinguishing them, why did he write, "Some authorities go further..."? To anyone reading normally--i.e., for comprehension rather than for desired outcome--the use of "further" clearly means he was extending the description just given. If the second sentence only has to do with citizenship, not the particular kind of citizenship under discussion, why would he use the word "further"?
And speaking of evidence: what evidence do you have that any authorities do not "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"? Besides the standard exceptions for ambassadors etc., did any authority ever successfullly argue that someone born within the jurisdction was not a citizen at all?