I disagree completely. The correct meaning of the term can be discovered by reading what the founders wrote. Whatever interpretations by Judges occurred later is irrelevant. I believe Obama is a Natural born citizen by the most stringent criteria, that being born of two American Parents. I believe I have deduced sufficient information from the available evidence to draw that conclusion.
I understand, but you have to look at US citizenship law (I linked to it in a previous post). The Founding Fathers' opinions may come up in court cases regarding this issue but they are not the law. As the law currently stands, there are just people who are citizens by birth and naturalized citizens. That's it.
But his dad was never an American.
Here is a quote from "Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor" a Supreme Court Decision in 1830. (This is important because John Marshall was the Chief Justice and in agreement):
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth
Good, then you'll accept James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" as your authority?
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.