“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.”
A further point I would like to thrash out with you is this. A "natural born citizen" is either a "title" or a condition. If it is a "title" then it can be pronounced by an administrative body, (such as Congress or a state legislature) if it is a condition, it is not susceptible to the pronouncements of any legislature.
I argue that it is a condition, not a title. Given that the term is made up of two adjectives modifying the noun "citizen" I would suggest that it is descriptive of a particular kind of citizen, and is therefore a condition, not a title.
An inherent condition cannot be modified by statute. A dog is either born with two legs or it is not. As Lincoln said, "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."
As far as I know, what you are saying has absolutely no legal validity. If “condition” vs. “title” is a legal issue, please link to where I can read about the law in this area.