The Supreme court rightly declared in Minor v Happersett that "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. That there were doubts was in my opinion due to the fact that so many people kept trying to shove that English Law jus soli principle back into American Law, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it was not the criteria for "natural born citizen" even if it was ever the criteria for being a citizen of a particular state. In any case, you acknowledge that we absolutely rejected English Common law regarding the Children of Englishman always being an Englishman as they tried to apply it to Americans. Good, that's progress. :)
And American children born anywhere are American citizens - or do you disagree? The court has affirmed in Rogers v Bellei that we follow jus soli (with modifications by statute.)
My personal opinion is that Children born anywhere of American Parents are indeed "natural born citizens." This is consistent with the 1790 act of naturalization which was created by the first congress, made up of many delegates to the convention, and who ought to have known what they meant in 1787 when they wrote article II. As for children born to only one American parent, they are not a "natural citizen" but instead a mixture of allegiances with which they can chose to be one or the other. A "natural citizen" is not faced with such a choice at birth. They are born into a single "natural" allegiance.
Prior to the Cable act of 1924, split nationality births were not even possible, except in very rare cases.
Your opinion, backed up by very little. There are many citations saying the US follows English common law, some from very early on. In another thread I cited an early author on the Constitution, William Rawle: A View of the Constitution from the 1820's (two different editions) which of course you did not like
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…. Who was Rawle? US District Attorney for Pennsylvania, appointed by George Washington. There are also various statements from court cases, which you don't want to credit because you disagree with them.
(In any case, you acknowledge that we absolutely rejected English Common law regarding the Children of Englishman always being an Englishman as they tried to apply it to Americans. Good, that's progress. :)
Not really progress since I've known that one since I learned about the War of 1812 in Junior High.