The second item is the correct one.
There is a distinction between a ‘born citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’.
English common law usage definitions were still commonly used by colonialists and by the new United States of America at the time of drafting the US Constitution.
English common law defined at the time a born citizen was a child born on the jurisdictional soil of a subject.
English common law defined a ‘natural’ born citizen as a child born on jurisdictional soil of two parents who were both subjects (later subjects=citizens). In other words a normal family birth of two citizens on jurisdictional soil would confer ‘natural born citizen’ status on the child. Natural born citizenship was perceived to have a higher fealty to the crown or country.
We must remember that in British society there were several layers of social rank. A mere subject citizen could not be a Lord or an Earl. Only those with the required lineage could be granted royal status.
In the colonies, a child born say for example to a colonial father and an indian mother would be considered a subject but not a natural born subject.
When the Founders of the Constitution wrote ‘Natural Born Citizen’ into the requirement for eligibility for President whereas all other offices only required mere citizenship, they knew exactly what they saying.
The distinction has been lost in the noise over the centuries but is now raised as an issue because there are serious serious concerns about Obama’s loyalties. The issue has been visited in the 19th century with a ruling that confirms what I describe above. But it has also been visited by late 20th century reviews by judges that either did not take the time to trace back the meaning or did not have the staff to research it.
The issue must go to the Supreme Court who have access to hundreds of legal scholars who know the history well. The issue has not got that far yet but it must go there to sort out the meaning and its importance.
The Supreme Court will not touch it. They will say who ever brought it does not have standing. However, I think every American living today could say they are affected by President’s actions and, for that reason, have standing.
I was in Ramstein in 64. Second grade and I recall being “drilled” about being a NBC if we were born on base.
Our brothers and sisters would be eligible to be President of the USA. There was a difference and it was a very important distinction.
I recall very little from then but have always remembered that fact. In order to be P you must be born on US soil and BOTH your parents had to be US citizens.
This simply isn't true.
All children born in the country were "natural born subjects," whether their parents were English (or colonial) or not.
There's a pretty extensive discussion of this in the majority opinion of US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Anyone can read it for himself.
The same rule applied in the Colonies and in the United States after the Constitution was adopted.
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)
Rawle was one of our most prominent early legal scholars, and a close associate of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and several other Framers of the Constitution.
I think one of the reasons the distinction has been lost is because of the Grandfather clause. It was something like 40 years before we had a natural born citizen President, and so for forty years, the topic simply didn't get discussed.
By the time those forty years had passed, the English Common law argument had been heard so many times, people simply accepted it as the basis of our "natural citizen" requirement. (Not all. Pennsylvania specifically noted that we followed the Vattel definition, rather than English Common law. )
I will further point out that the Abolitionist movement gained a great deal of strength after the Revolution era. Their efforts to emancipate the slaves REQUIRED the usage of English common law, because the "Law of Nations" was very much against them.
I think they simply pushed for the acceptance of the English law definition, not because it was accurate, but because that was what they needed to obtain their goals.