So if your statement above is true, then are children of foreign ambassador's eligible to be president?
I was all supportive of all you said in post #3, but what you are saying in post #24 is wrong and it's inserting in the wrong stuff that confuses people and makes this issue more complicated than it is. To be Natural Born that child "born in the United States" must also owe allegiance to the USA. There are situations where that child would not owe any allegiance to the USA, one situation being the child of a foreign diplomat.
To be Natural Born that child would be "born a citizen of one of the several states, of parents not owing allegiance to another country."
That cuts off children of dual citizens, for example, and isn't literally "born on the soil," rather extends to being "born a citizen of a state" A little more fact intensive in some cases, but hey, it's a constitution, not a body of case law.
The child of a diplomat is the best known exception. The child of an illegal alien is not as clear cut when considered in the context of natural law as it has been applied throughout various SCOTUS decisions. By being born on US soil, the child is born into allegiance of the United States or, at least, there is a strong possibility that the court would determine that. The fact is, if we accept the attitudes of our founders, an alien child is absolutely a NBC. As Madison said, the place of birth is the best determinant of allegiance and it is what applies in the US. Go ahead and hand this to the court or the congress and see what happens. Cruz won’t be considered a NBC which is as it should be as natural citizenship should arise by soil before blood.