Except that this is a completely fabricated definition.
The founders never defined “natural born citizen”, as they were not far-sighted enough to think “we the people” would elect a foreign-born imposter.
I believe this is called a gratuitous assertion.
However, lets deal with this on two levels. First, Barak Obama admits he was a British citizen at Birth. Thus, if he is a dual citizen he must perforce have divided loyalties. The framers cautioned about this specifically, so that the generally accepted argument based on Congressional legislation defining who is a citizen is not defining the same status as what the framers were discussing in placing this one requirement on who could be President.
Just for more fun.. lets do a quote from
Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded by Leo Donofrio
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.