I never even implied it was the definitive source LOL. The term has been around since the days of the Roman senate. There HAD to be a way of determining which society a person belonged to, and that has always included parentage. When both parents we of that same society and the child born there, there is no question of divided societal loyalties. When a child is born on foreign soil, then divided loyalties do exist... how deeply depends on how long the child is raised in that society. When parents are of differing societies (Nationalities) by definition the child will be able to CHOOSE which to be loyal to. Granted, that loyalty may reside more with one than other, but how do you predict that?
The framers wanted to ensure loyalty to country. You do that by ensuring that the person in question only has loyalty to one from birth. How? Both parents being of that society, and being born on the soil of the society itself.
The only people arguing against this simple basic truth, do not want to face the consequences of that truth. Every damn thing this government has done since Jan 20, 2009 has been illegal. Thats a DAMN big consequence.
That's no more truthful than the counter that all birthers are racists.
It appears to be a simple, basic truth to you because you refuse to acknowledge that there is also a valid historical argument that reaches a different conclusion, one that is well-established in legal documentation. Perhaps the Supreme Court would side with your opinion, although I seriously doubt it. But if they don't it will not be because they are afraid of the truth; it will be because they find your select interpretation of the Constitutionally undefined phrase “natural born citizen” insufficiently compelling compared to well-understood alternatives.