[zort]

“The "at the time" clause is there because they were founding the United States. NOBODY was natural born. Pretty obvious. It’s got nothing to do with a definition of "natural born citizen"." Of course not at the time of the adoption of the Constitution! It is worded to roll the requirement in for later generations.

If "natural born citizen" required both parents to be born in the US, this clause would be insufficient, because it would not cover the generation of people born in the US to parents who themselves had been born under colonial rule. For example, Martin van Buren (born 1782), son of Abraham van Buren (born 1737) and Maria Hoes (van Alen) van Buren (born 1747) would be ineligible, as neither Abraham nor Maria were born in the US. I haven't been able to trace the birthdates of both parents of John Tyler (born 1790) or James K. Polk (born 1795), but they, too, were almost certainly born to parents who had not been born in the US.

Obviously, the Founders did not contemplate this definition of "natural born citizen".

[Uncle Chip]

If "natural born citizen" required both parents to be born in the US

It didn't. It just required that the parents be "citizens" at the time of the child's birth -- born, naturalized, or grandfathered in.

[Brown Deer]

Martin van Buren (born 1782), son of Abraham van Buren (born 1737) and Maria Hoes (van Alen) van Buren (born 1747) would be ineligible, as neither Abraham nor Maria were born in the US.

You don't consider New York a part of the United States?

I haven't been able to trace the birthdates of both parents of John Tyler (born 1790) or James K. Polk (born 1795), but they, too, were almost certainly born to parents who had not been born in the US.

Don't be so certain!

[FreeStateYank]

I disagree and do not find the line of reasoning you used to be persuasive.