Science and Engineering do not use opinions, they use facts, derived from first principles. Having watched from the sidelines here for a while, it's all-too-obvious that what you say and what you do are two different things.
Let's ask: "What is the first principle?" As to the question of eligibility as it entails citizenship, the first principle is the choice of words the Framers used: natural born citizen. A few observations about that and how this has proceeded in the Courts:
1. When the Framers chose that term, there was an already existing usage in which the term "natural born citizen" was being used interchangeably with the term "natural born subject." (See, e.g., the Massachusetts naturalization statutes and the Vermont Constitution of 1777 (which terms those in the new State who have just cast off the shackles of England as "natural born subjects.))
2. And the term "natural born subject" in its English common law original to apply to persons born within the English realm of alien parents. The foremost authority on the ECL during the period leading up to American independence and the framing of the Constitution was unquestionably Blackstone. And the point at issue he writes succinctly: "THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally fpeaking, natural-born fubjects, and entitled to all the privileges." Commentaries on the Laws of England, I, 10.
3. By contrast, there is no documented usage of the English term "natural born" up through the establishment of the Constitution by which it conveys the meaning of "of two like (citizen or subject) parents."
4. Alexander Hamilton (one of the foremost of this generation) indicates the interpretative framework for the Constitution is the antecedent usage found within English statutes. ("But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.")
5. Naturally, the Courts have discerned and applied these first principles (Smith v. Alabama; Wong Kim Ark) and followed Hamilton's lead, stating the interpretative principle in like measure: the meaning of Constitutional terms is to be understood in light of the language and history of the English common law. Legal principle follows first principles.
In short, this has proceeded exactly how you posit it should have proceeded.
Except you don't like the result. Because for you the "first principle" is in fact the latter principle, that "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" are detestable things. (Hey, I don't like them either.) From there you project backwards to find a different assumed "first principle" that has FAR less support historically and legally. That is your M.O. Not the one you posit as the ideal.
There is so much wrong with your postulates and your reasoning that to answer them all would simply be an undertaking not worth my time.
1. When the Framers chose that term, there was an already existing usage in which the term "natural born citizen" was being used interchangeably with the term "natural born subject."
Yes, "King" and "President" are exactly alike.
2. And the term "natural born subject" in its English common law original to apply to persons born within the English realm of alien parents.
I'll wager I know more about this than do you. Children born to Aliens in England could not hold public office, they could not inherit land, and they had to pay special alien taxes.
They were IN FACT, second class citizens, and yet here you and your ilk come along and claim that not only should our Standard for citizenship be based on English Feudal law, but we should EXCEED IT in STUPIDITY!
The British Ruling elite never used the Jus Soli standard for Electing public officials. It was ALWAYS based on Blood. They wouldn't even allow them to hold municipal office.
You either need to get some more knowledge, or some intellectual Honesty. When you can show me a Ruling English King who did not follow a Royal bloodline, then you might have a point.