That’s a pretty enough site, except for three problems:
1. It disagrees with historical scholars, who are clear that those born on US soil before the Revolution were all considered to be natural born citizens.
2. It disagrees with historical scholars, who are clear that the reason for the grandfather clause was NOT to make those born on US soil eligible, but to make persons like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, who were foreign-born, eligible.
3. It disagrees with Father of the Constitution James Madison, who told us that a person had two allegiances prior to the Revolution. Assuming that he adhered to the community of his birth, that was his primary allegiance that made for citizenship, and he was absolved of his secondary allegiance to the English king.
4. It completely ignores the historical and legal meaning of “natural born citizen,” which was NOT just a throwing together of three separate words that could be figured out by looking up dictionary definitions of the words and joining them together. The phrase was a legal and historical TERM OF ART, a continuation of the term of art “natural born subject,” which it replaced. That term had a centuries-long specific meaning. And it was NOT what the author of this site claims.
Did you write that?