Getting your side to make an admission against interest is often like pulling teeth. It is to your credit that you have done so.
However, this begs the next question. Why should we wish to use other than the "strictest" standard?
I think you're reading too much into my statement if you think I'm making an "admission against interest." All I meant was that it was one definition that's brought up on these birther threads.
That's just the strictest standard commonly discussed, as Kleon said. There are stricter standards one can imagine--how about requiring that the president be a descendant of someone who was here at the time of the Constitution's writing, to whom "our posterity" would directly refer? (Some on your side have come awful close to saying that's what they really meant.) Or that the president have lived his entire life in the United States, rather than just 14 years (something you came close to saying yourself, if I remember correctly)?
The point being that we clearly use other than the strictest imaginable standard. So strictness per se isn't really an argument for the standard under discussion.