Only if you ignore a couple of major Supreme Court decisions. Let's put it this way, if the citations you provided were comprehensive, why was a birth provision added to the 14th amendment?? Why would it even be needed?? Why did the Minor decision say there were doubts about the citizenship of those persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents?? And why did the Wong Kim Ark decision say that natural-born citizens were defined outside of the Constitution but declare that the separate term of "citizenship by birth" was defined strictly by the 14th amendment?? Kobach couldn't explain this away. The Supreme Court citations outweigh an attorney general and a couple of legal reviewers.
To overturn the Dred Scott decision. Just as the 19th Amendment was added to overturn Minor v. Happersett
“As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark
"Why did the Minor decision say there were doubts about the citizenship of those persons born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents??"
Even going back to the Founding era, there was not unanimity of thought on birthright citizenship. During the Dr. David Ramsay v. William L. Smith trial in the House of Representatives, James Madison argued for birthright citizenship, while Representative Jackson of Georgia argued against it.
"And why did the Wong Kim Ark decision say that natural-born citizens were defined outside of the Constitution but declare that the separate term of "citizenship by birth" was defined strictly by the 14th amendment??"
Not sure what you mean by this. Justice Gray says that "citizenship by birth" goes back to the founding and earlier.
“In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America”
And later,
“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad… Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.” Justice Gray, Wong Kim Ark
And he finishes with a statement that the 14th Amendment affirms the what existed before it was passed.
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"