The Rogers v. Bellei decision recognizes a category of "citizen at birth" that was NOT based on jus soli.
Strawman. Try reading it again from Rogers v. Bellei
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.The case involved one of those affected by statute. You can scream all you want about Rogers v Bellei being wrongly decided, but that's what they said.
From English common law: jus soli = born on the soil = natural born. Go read up on Coke's case, and as you are fond of saying: "Read it. Understand it. Learn from it." Here's a helpful link to Blackstone's Commentaries.
No one argues that senators might be confused about the terminology. The dicussion isn't about what some senators might think or misundersand. We're talking about the SCOTUS specifically defined this term and separated it from other terms. They are NOT used by the court as synonyms ... except as Justice Waite defined both "natives" and "natural-born citizens" as being all persons born in the country to citizen parents.
Yup, Waite equates native = natural born.
These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Note he has one category with two synonyms (natives or natural-born citizens) vs the other categoryof two synonyms (aliens or foreigners). He equates the two, as did Senators during the debate on the amendment. Gray used the terms interchangeably.
Also learn from the several quotes that you ignore or try to explain away that say the US "natural born" citizen is analogous to English "natural born subject."
Neither your "jus soli" NOR the "citizen at birth" in Bellei fit the SCOTUS definiton of NBC ... which is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
In Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS did not define natural born definitively, it said there was DOUBT. It also said
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts(do you understand what doubt means?) And of course, Minor v. Happersett was also "not about" natural born, so by your standards you can't rely on it - it was about the vote for women. Justice Gray cited Minor, along with several other quotes and sources that said we follow the English common law in this. WKA resolved that doubt. Rogers V. Bellei cemented it. Ankeny followed the same precedent.
If the topic were how to define natural-born SUBJECT, then English common law is meaningful. As for natural-born citizen — it is not.
There were some elements of common law that were used in a couple of the original colonies/states, but not in the U.S. as a whole. We know this because common law made children natural-born subjects if born abroad to fathers who were natural-born subjects. The U.S. evidently did NOT adhere to this common law, because they wrote a law to do this very type of thing within the 1790 Naturalization Act. If they were following English common law, there was no need to do this.