There is a supreme court case from the 70’s/80’s regarding the right of citizenship to children borne from soldiers in Vietnam’s relations with native women. The ruling was that while obviously a child borne to an American woman overseas was a citizen (didn’t mention “natural born”, but didn’t need to), for the child to claim his paternity granted citizenship, paternity had to be established. The notion that the child of an American woman born while she happened to be next door in Canada is ineligible to be President is nonsense.
The topic isn’t “Citizenship” it is “Natural Born Citizenship”. You will note that Article II uses TWO different terms. It uses the term “Citizen” and it also uses the term “Natural Born Citizen.”
If they meant exactly the same thing, they would not have included the specific words “Natural Born Citizen.” They would have simply used the term “Citizen.”
(Watch CodeToad whine about context from this excerpt I use to illustrate my point. :) )
“No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a CITIZEN of the United States...”
See? They are two different things. Article II SAYS so.