That's a nice platitude, but it has no basis in law, bub.
The nation might well have been better served to keep a guy like Bill Clinton, given his parentage from office, but time so spent would be a distraction to the main point here.
One cannot retroactively try to recast or rewrite the Constitution to suggest it was wrong or unfair, by your standards, not to allow people with family loyalties to other countries, to be president. On its face, this has made plain sense to hundreds of millions of Americans. It's sad you can't see the wisdom of it.
Just as we're seeing now, with Obama's "without pre-condition" talks with Iranian rulers, and his seeking partners for NASA among Muslim nations (based on religion, not even national boundaries!) we see how terrible it can be when a president "would stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" as it would if a president could pen "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race," against the clear interests of the US.
HF
I’m not a legal scholar, but as far as I can tell, no one has come up with an iron-clad definition for what the founders meant by “natural born.” We can agree it means “born in the U.S.” Beyond that, I’m not convinced this “father was a British subject” issue has any bearing on the matter. In light of that, I continue to maintain that judging people by their parents’ status is not fair game.