Then you haven't done enough reading yet.
Depending on the amount of reading you've done, you might well disagree. If you do a lot more reading, including original sources, and what's been written on both sides, then you will see that every argument that you have believed is built on sand.
Simple logic dictates that a person born on the soil of a country, to two citizen parents, will most likely have the greatest degree of unshakeable loyalty to the country of their birth. This is the fundamental point here, and is something which I believe the Framers easily processed with simple reasoning.
Except they never said any such thing. On the contrary, Madison said that place of birth was what counted in the United States, and William Rawle, who met regularly with both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, two of our very top founders, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, was CRYSTAL CLEAR that "natural born citizen" INCLUDED the children born on US soil of ALIEN parents.
Crystal clear.
Also, as noted a few posts back, the "undivided loyalty" meme collapses completely. It's just a claim that birthers made, that the Founders had this goal of "undivided loyalty." it does NOT match history. It does NOT match what they said. It does NOT match what they did.
Further, I firmly believe that it was their intent to encode that simple logic and reasoning into our Constitution, in Article II, Section I of that document.
You're welcome to beleive whatever you like. You're welcome to believe that the Founding Fathers made George Washington King George I, or that John Adams invented the steamboat. All major authorities disagree with you.
Using your understanding of the NBC clause, it would be just fine with the Framers if we put a man in the Oval Office who was raised outside this country and its history and culture, simply because he laid claim to having been born on our soil.
That's precisely what they specified. Age 35, natural born citizen, 14 years a resident of the United States.
Now why do you think they said fourteen years? Why not FIFTEEN? Or TWENTY?
Why not some round number? Mmmmn?
I'll bet Mr Rogers can give a good guess... as to why, exactly, precisely...
FOURTEEN.
Ah...so you're whistling for help, eh? I think you need it. Your last screed boiled down to just two words; "You're wrong!"
You obviously know how to throw an avalanche of words at someone in a debate, but you've got to work on actually making a case. You haven't done that, so far.
Now, why don't you tell me how your interpretation of NBC is logically superior to mine? Do that, and we may actually start a real conversation.
And Dr. David Ramsey, who treated battle field injuries of our soldiers during the war, and who also knew Washington and Franklin, and who was also a well known historian of the time, says otherwise. Madison also does not leave his argument at place of birth. His very next point is regarding Mr. Smith's Jus Sanguinus qualifications.
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Madison argues further that Mr. Smith was part of the Community of South Carolina, and when the community renounced their citizenship en masse, Mr. Smith, being a minor was bound by their decision.
The Salient point is that Mr. Smith was not just "born here." He was born to a family long settled and prominent in the community. He was no "Anchor baby."