They defined, maybe, one case where someone is not a natural born citizen. They did NOT define what one is. If, after all these years that is still unclear - I can not help.
All the opinions out there are just that, mine included.
That is what happens when courts refuse to rule on matters, they remain unclear and subject to endless debate.
FWIW, I tend to agree with you on the definiton - but my opinion is meaningless.
“All the opinions out there are just that, mine included.”
Actually it is not, because the law of nature is what it is despite any and all opinions and statutory laws to the contrary. Example: you can have two fathers, one is a natural father by whom the child is begotten and the other one is an adoptive father by whom the child is adopted by statutory law. The natural father is the actual father due to the natural circumstances and not by law, while the adoptive father is made the pretended father by authority of a statutory law artificially made by man.