Yes, you have Blackstone’s definition, Vattel’s definition, and umpteen other definitions besides. Which is why you need the Supreme Court’s definition.
In the UK they had one sovereign with everyone else being subjects. It suited the UK sovereign's needs to be able to impress "subjects" (such as USA citizens in 1812) into the navy, so the definition of natural born subject was made as loose and all encompassing as possible, the exact opposite of purpose of the definition of natural born Citizen.
In the USA our chief executive is a public servant who serves his sovereigns, i.e., each and every sovereign citizen (the exact opposite of the UK system). The natural born Citizen clause is Constitutional job requirement for the presidency (one of three) that was put in place to protect the Republic and its sovereign citizens from foreign intrigue and influence. It makes sense that it would be as restrictive as possible against foreign allegiances in our servant, the Commander-in-Chief, the head of our military might. A natural born Citzen must be free of any and all alien allegiance at birth.
There are no substantive parallels between the opposites, natural born subject (something the Founders were trying to excape) and natural born Citizens. You take your leftist new world order BS and get lost.