And that interpretation bothers me, because, for example, it also excludes children born to people with a job requiring a temporary position abroad. At the same time we bestow US citizenship on the children of those that sneak into the US while mantaining citizenship elsewhere.
When the Constitution was written people didn't jet off to foreign lands for a vacation or quick visit, the travel was long and arduous. The trip was probably taken because you wanted to immigrate to a new country or had to serve in an official capacity as a representative of the government.
In the case of yldstrk having to give birth while vacationing in the Bahamas we have (I presume) two parents that are US citizens with true faith and allegiance to the same, temporarily out of the country and will return home. It doesn't make sense to me to consider that child ineligible for the Presidency.
Is it from your mother? Is it from your father?
Is it from the country where you are born?
Is your citizenship a statement of your legal residency? A statement of who claims jurisdiction over you and/or your resources?
Is citizenship a statement of your inner loyalty?
The highest standard, the definition that best combines all those possibilities and offers the best chance for legal and inner loyalty to the country, is that of being born in country to citizen parents.
It doesn't guarantee loyalty, nothing does, but it offers the best hope for that loyalty and no competing or potential legal claims to it.
If you wanted to start a nation in a hostile world after winning freedom from a powerful nation, what standard would you choose for the highest, most powerful single person in charge of that country? You'd choose the highest, most legally clean and pure standard possible.