Not true. A true statement would be: "... anyone born in Hawaii after August 21st 1959, and born to parents (plural) who are citizens of the United States, is a natural born citizen."
Someone who has divided loyalties, or partial allegiance to any other nation (such as one would have if one parent is a British citizen), is not a "natural born citizen", although they might be a "native born citizen".
That was a known and never in contention. Was trying to concentrate and define ‘natural born citizen’. When reading the post that started and the initial comment that started this string.
But thanks for adding it more details already known.
Your addition “and born to parents (plural) who are citizens of the United States” is not found in the Constitution. It is your definition. It is not everybody’s.
I suspect the concern over both parents is a very modern concern. Until the early 1900s, women were generally assumed to be the same citizenship as their husband. I seriously doubt anyone at the Constitutional Convention asked themselves, “But what if the mother was an American, and the bigamist father but not legally husband was a foreigner who then abandoned the child and mother both...”
In the latter half of the 20th century, it seems to have been accepted law that NBC included anyone born in the USA. The only controversy was over those born outside the USA.
That may or may not have been the original intent, but the original intent wasn’t written down. Some said one, some said the other. But the SCOTUS had a chance to weigh in before Obama was certified, and they declined. They won’t weigh in now...