Thank you for sending that link to me, by the way.
It took me a while to get to it, and I have had to think on it. I made the error (as a sailor and an amateur historian) of looking at cases of aggression and legal action against embassies and military bases in a foreign country, (both of which most lay people regard as US territory, which they apparently aren’t) and making logical conclusions from that.
I am curious-why do you think, in the days of weeks and months to get from point A to point B back in the late 18th century, that they specifically say that only children born to two citizens on American soil are “Natural Born” and thus only eligible for the Presidency. Is it that a child born on foreign soil may be eligible for dual citizenship and thus have a potentially divided allegiance?
Is that the only consideration?
Anything that might result in divided allegiance loyalty or citizenship, be it location of birth or foreign parents, negates natural born citizen status.