See that statement right there is the root of your entire argument or opinion on this issue! You seem to have this idea that not being natural born is somekind of 'sub' citizen. No way! You are the only one arguing that which reveals its some sort of emotional issue for you, and therefore you can't grasp the constitutional argument because you are blinded by the emotions.
The one and ONLY distinction between a citizen born on the soil and a natural born citizen born of 2 citizen parents is achieving the rank of POTUS someday - that's IT! There is NO OTHER distinction so there is no such thing as a "SUB" citizen.
And the ONLY reason that distinction is in there is to PROTECT the United States from foreign influences and usurpations!!!!!!!!
Whatever, Gramma. I am sorry you think I am emotionally too involved to want my child to be something other than a sub-citizen. Please show me somewhere in case law that defines a third type of citizen. There isn’t one.
You sound very emotionally attached to your argument, and I am very politely disagreeing with you. Read whatever nonsense you want to into my replies, but don’t burden me with it.
If the USSC listens to one of these cases (and I really wish they would, whatever the outcome for my son, who will not want to run for president unless he has some type of personality 360) and they say that there is a third type of citizen besides natural born and naturalized, I will very humbly beg your pardon. Until then, it is all right for me to disagree with you, without being called too emotional to think rationally.
As to the end of your post, I am just asking how my son can really be subject to foreign influence or usurpation? I know lots of Americans with foreign born parents who have a lot more foreign influence from that parent than my son. Do they become de-categorized as NBC’s because their folks celebrate holidays differently, or cook food from their country? (See how silly that seems when it is about something benign and not malevolent political views?)