From Minor v. Happersett:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
The de facto practice of calling such persons "citizens" may indeed have become not a homicide, but with such ambiguity still present, no sane person extends that to obviate the Presidential qualification.
We can tolerate little crimes at the fringes, but not when they affect the entire nation.
The Kenyan was not qualified, no matter where he was born.
Hardly. When you're the only one who sees a crime and all the experts see a natural death you may want to check your biases.
From Minor v. Happersett:
Right. The court didn't address the question because they didn't have to.
Since then we've had a President born of a non-citizen father elected and re-elected. The vast majority of the political and legal worlds have accepted the plain wording of the 14th and no one even raised a credible challenge.
Feel free to consider it a crime but understand what a fringe position you hold, and definitely don't expect arguments that haven't gotten traction in 230 years to suddenly carry the day.
Birthright citizenship might be a bad idea but until we amend the Constitution it's a fact of our lives.