The concept of Natural born was not meant to confine the birth to a geographical region. Check out the authority which the Founders used for legal definitions, concepts etc., Blackstone.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Natural Born” as “In English law, one born within the dominions; or rather, the allegiance of the King of England.” This is why children born to officers/subjects of the King (state) are Natural born no matter WHERE they are born. Hence, American citizen’s children are Natural born even if born in Panama or Kenya for that matter.
"The framers of the constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance" never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good people of these Colonies...are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards this as "high treason." So the common law--the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance--could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e. republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!" - Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science
I read this to mean that being an American is different than the preceding reality, and that being an American citizen is not something imposed on someone by an accident of birth. It can derive from being born in American to Americans, or it can be earned by the citizenship process. It is an actual right, not an obligation. We even allow people to leave!
The question still lingers: What did the Founding Fathers mean with a restriction unique to holding the office of the president, that of needing to be not just a citizen, but to be a 'natural born' citizen.
I believe that their intent was to exclude anyone with any hint of divided loyalties, specifically including a certain fondness for a place of birth other than on US soil disqualifies.
Right now I believe Leo Donafrio is correct about both McCain and Obama. It is now up to the Supreme Court Justices to review the case and make their decision. We will certainly know more on December 5th. :)
I'm listening to Leo Donofrio live as I compose this reply...
From the US State Dept., Foreign Affairs Manual, Section 7-1116.1-4C:
7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States" (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
a. A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States. A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).
b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.
c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22712.htm