Nowadays there is little consensus, but from 1787 till the last couple of decades, there seemed to be a pretty solid consensus. I know of dozens of quotes from Statesmen, Historians, Law book References, Newspapers, etc. in support of the two citizen requirement. At the moment, I only know of THREE references that indicate otherwise.
Even George Will and Ann Coulter inadvertently weighed in on this issue in opposition to the "Anchor Baby" Theory of citizenship.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
Only SCOTUS can resolve this issue and they should do it soon. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. ... Add to that the fact that 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies are born annually to illegal aliens and you have the ingredients for a major problem in the future.
Read the above two links from Coulter and Will for a better insight.
About 99.99999% of the cites you refer to trace back to a single source in a foreign country.
Funny, I supplied you with far more than three in our last discussion of the matter. Have you forgotten already?
But two of them are William Rawle and James Kent. Men considered to be among the foremost legal and Constitutional scholars of their day and whose books and lectures were widely quoted in the courts.
I am opposed to birthright citizenship, but debating it with you changes nothing.