Which is an exploration of fantasy, rather than a search for the truth. That there is little basis for anything else in the historical record seems pretty clear to me.
But again, since it is a standard Acknowledged by the Supreme Court, why should we wish to use a weaker one?
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 14 year requirement was to bridge the time period between the age of 21 and 35. I said that it would be better for a President to have spent his entire life in this country, but most especially his early formative years. I grew up speaking the "pledge of allegiance" every day in school. I don't think they did much of that in Indonesia... well at least not pledging allegiance to THIS country anyway.
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.
We do not "clearly use other than the strictest imaginable standard." We have always used the same standard before, but we never had cause for it to be questioned till we had a candidate that doesn't meet it. The last time we had a candidate which would have tested the standard was 1916, and he lost. (possibly due to the fact that Breckenridge Long's essay ended up in so many newspapers and thereby instructed the public. )
It is my contention that a standard that creates "anchor babies" and "foreign presidents" is a seriously flawed standard that only a fool would embrace. Especially in light of the fact that there is so little support for it in our history.
Maybe we shouldn't. Discussion on these forums has never been about whether we should or shouldn't use certain eligibility standards.