Have you read the case decision? It most definately does have to do with what we are discussing here in terms of Presidential qualifications:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
It has been discussed ad nauseum and debunked on this forum. I am not discussing it for the 1,000th time. Let’s stick to the Constitution and the Founders intent and the records that they left.
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” ...snip... “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. “
Please note that the ruling states, “But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEFINED in the Constitution.” And in both cases, it lists the circumstances which includes your “loophole” (as you like to call it) which reads, “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”!!!
You see, there was a reason for this portion and it did not only have to do with the legal jurisdiction! It had to do with allegiance as noted by the words of the author and those who argued the Amendment before it became law!
Just because you and others have decided to ignore the words and use your own “loophole” does not change what the intent of the law was and should be again!
I don't see "natural born citizen" in there anywhere. Naturalization is the act of making someone who would otherwise be a foreigner, a citizen. Doesn't matter if it happens at birth or after. Those born abroad of citizen parents are citizens at/by birth. But they are naturalized for Constitutional purposes. (again with exceptions for children of military and diplomats serving abroad). Or at least that is what the Supreme Court has ruled, as recently as the early 1970s. The effect of that ruling is that "Citizen at birth" is not equal to "natural born citizen", or even "non naturalized citizen". So if "citizen by birth" can be naturalized at birth (due to Congress only having power over naturalization) then logically "born in the country" can not by itself define "Natural Born Citizen".
Everything the courts have said or written about Natural Born Citizenship has been dicta. This is because the only time it matters is eligibility for the office of President, and they have not ruled on any eligiblity cases.