“Suppose a French couple were working here on a visa, and had a child. It would be natural of them to want French citizenship for that child.”
__
According to U.S. law, the child would be a natural born citizen of the United States. Whether it would also be a French citizen is a matter for the government of France to decide.
That’s the key to all these citizenship questions. Every country has an absolute right to determine whom it considers to be its citizens (and into which category of citizenship they fall), completely unencumbered by the laws of any other nation. We can’t dictate who is a French citizen, and they can’t dictate who is a U.S. citizen.
This is the way people misinterpret the law. It is done to justify otherwise inelligable persons. A person is "Natural Born" ONLY when both parents were already citizens. Go read the Founder's letters to each other. The issue is all about having a President who is fully vested and fully loyal to the United States. A "downloaded citizen" is not generally loyal to the US. Know any Mexicans who were born here to illegal immigrants? I do. They generally have no love for the US.
We can’t dictate who is a French citizen, and they can’t dictate who is a U.S. citizen.
You see, the preceding two statements are not compatable.
But according to your stupid theory, France can draft an American President to serve in their army. Doesn't that strike you as an extremely stupid problem with your theory?
You are correct that every country decides for itself who shall be its citizens and what class of citizens they shall be. That French couple’s child born to them while here on a visa is under the Fourteenth Amendment under an extending reading of Wong Kim Ark a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. But that child is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which class of citizen is not even mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.