[Jeff Winston]

However what is much more disturbing is that under such a ruling the children of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA during their father’s long tenure here are eligible for POTUSA. I believe this is the very point of the Founding Fathers expressed concern and wording concerning eligibility. Of course I do not want a Sharia law advocate for POTUSA.

Historically, not everyone born in the country was a natural born citizen. Citizen parents weren't required, but if the parents were visiting royalty, foreign ambassadors, or members of an occupying army, the child was not an nbc.

[noinfringers2]

The President of Egypt was a resident of the USA. He was very active in academia life. His children were born under such a presence.

[rxsid]

"However what is much more disturbing is that under such a ruling the children of the current President of Egypt who were born in the USA during their father’s long tenure here are eligible for POTUSA. I believe this is the very point of the Founding Fathers expressed concern and wording concerning eligibility. Of course I do not want a Sharia law advocate for POTUSA.

Citizen parents weren't required

=======================================================================

That's simply not true.

For example, see the case of James McClure. He was born in the U.S. in 1785 and wasn't even considered a "citizen" (let alone a "natural born Citizen") until after his British citizen father naturalized a U.S. citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

Historically, not everyone born in the country was a natural born citizen. Citizen parents weren't required, but if the parents were visiting royalty, foreign ambassadors, or members of an occupying army, the child was not an nbc.

Or slaves, or Indians, or the children of British Loyalists after the Revolution. Both the US and England recognized these children as British Subjects.

Kinda got a lot of exceptions in your theory, doesn't it?