The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
If the Founders had intended there to be a definition of 'natural-born' other than the standing (two centuries old at the time) definition they would have included it in the Constitution. They did not. Therefore, the dictionary definition is the legal definition. That's basic jurisprudence.
You can dredge up all the contrived cherry-picked rationalizations you want, and contort all the SCOTUS rulings that *don't* say what you claim they say, but it will never change the fact that a natural-born citizen is merely one who is born a citizen.
As much as you would like it to mean that only someone born on the 4th of July, in Washington DC to ten generations of NBC parents can be considered a NBC, you can't have that.
Clearly the Founders considered that children would be born to parents who would spend considerable time overseas, thus the requirement that those children be residents of the US for fourteen years - that is at most 40% of their lifetimes. Yet they never specified that those children had to be born here. Furthermore, at that time, citizenship of the father was all that mattered, women were still second-class citizens. So both the 'two citizen parents' rule is falsified, and the 'born in the USA' rule is falsified. Only citizenship at birth remains.
And I have read Vattel, whom you birther cultists like to reference, and he didn't say what you claim he said. You have to selectively read him to extract your interpretation. Plus, Vattel is not a founding document, no matter who read him during the convention. Get over it.
Undesirable is not the same as ineligible. The first is determined by the rational execution of judgment, the second by law. Don't confuse them.
Tool.