On the issue here courts and legal scholars cite U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the SCOTUS quoted the definition to British jurist A. V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’” In the same opinion the Court explained that our Constitution is written in the language of English common law, and, “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
You did happen to see this page from John Adam's very own personal copy of Bacon (1736) on law? 
Apparently the main requirement for a "natural born subject" according to one book KNOWN to have been in a founder's possession was that the PARENTS had to be under the ACTUAL Obedience of the King. I take that to mean that they already had to be loyal subjects. Transient Aliens need not apply. I also notice it references the PARENTS First, before it mentions place of birth. I take that to mean that the one thing is of greater significance than the other.
Link
“Apparently the main requirement for a “natural born subject” according to one book KNOWN to have been in a founder’s possession was that the PARENTS had to be under the ACTUAL Obedience of the King. I take that to mean that they already had to be loyal subjects.”
You can take to mean whatever you like but your your jurisdiction is the inside of your own head.
What’s more, we did not adopt the English common law, only its language. “Natural born” means from birth. That’s language. Who qualifies as a citizen from birth is a question of law, not language.