The Constitution says natural born citizen.
That means one who is naturally an American because they couldn’t be anything else, born here of citizen parents.
It is your sort of loose interpretation that brought about the Kenyanesian Usurpation.
Indeed, it does. And it fails to provide an alternative to the dictionary definition of 'natural-born', which means that the dictionary definition is the legal definition. That is a judicial fact. You might wish that a presidential candidate had to be born on the 4th of July, in Washington DC, to tenth generation NBC parents, never having set foot outside the original 13 colonies, but it just isn't so. The Founders could easily have extended qualifications beyond the three they included, but they did not. Clearly it occurred to them that a potential candidate might spend extended time outside the USA (as, say, a military dependent or a dependent of a diplomat or even as a private citizen) but they did not include any special qualifications relating to that possibility, only a residency requirement of a mere 40% of the time required to be age-eligible - apparently they were not as frightened of 'foreign influence' as you are. They also did not state exactly how one was a citizen at birth, explicitly delegating the power to make those rules to Congress. So, get over it. Your argument is a house of cards based on cherry-picked, incomplete quotes from SCOTUS cases and misreadings of documents that are merely sources for (at best) and not, themselves, founding documents.You want your definition to be the Constitutional one? Get an amendment. I might even support it, if it isn't worded too liberally.