James Madison's argument for citizenship is not just simpleminded jus soli. His understanding of the term "place" is very different from just being somewhere when you were born. He interprets it as an attachment to a fixed community. I very much doubt he would consider the bastard child of a transient alien who lived much of his young life in a foreign nation with a different language, culture and religion, as a "natural born citizen."
One has to look at the historical context, not by today's standards. In context, there was a big empty country, and a need to attract more citizens, especially those with skills. It was also a time when nine of the very Founders were born overseas (Scotland, Ireland, England, West Indies). Today, we have unwanted and illegal immigrants - a very different situation from the time of the Founders.
All the more reason not to assume they would be okay with it. They didn't have to face this situation, which is the result of the most simple minded interpretation of the ideas behind what James Madison said. During a time when place was synonymous with commitment to a community, the two things were interchangeable. Now that loyalty lacking transients have become commonplace, (Thanks to this very idea being discussed) it makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age, as justification for tolerating a destructive practice in this age. When they said "place" they meant born into a community; As in being "part of".
Even so, it still overlooks the fact that at this time it was an established aspect of English law that Children followed the allegiance of their father. Had James Madison been asked about this he would have said the same thing.
No, it is the result of strict construction, since the US follows common law in many things. To paraphrase Justice Scalia quoted above, if you want to know what the Founders meant, look to English common law and Blackstone. The situation has changed, so change the Constitution and the law. Don't claim that the decisions don't exist.
Even so, it still overlooks the fact that at this time it was an established aspect of English law that Children followed the allegiance of their father.
Wrong. Go read up on it and you'll see English common law said that born on the soil = natural born, no matter the father's status (usual diplomatic exceptions). You'll see it referred to in several of the cases we've been discussing here. But you already know that, don't you?
All the more reason not to assume they would be okay with it. They didn't have to face this situation,
This is just like the argument liberals make against the Second Amendment. The Founders only knew single-shot muskets--they wouldn't have been okay with people owning assault rifles! Do you support that argument?