You’re not only wrong, you’re damned wrong!
No, he’s not wrong. Although an argument can be made (based on Vattel and several other sources) that “natural born citizen” requires that both parents be citizens, the more commonly accepted view is (and has been for quite some time) that children born in the U.S. (except those born to ambassadors and diplomats, who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States) are “natural born citizens.” See, e.g., Lynch v. Clarke (1844); Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD L. Rev. 1,1 (1968).
Well...Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you. "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
The requirement was to be BORN a citizen...not made one. The courts have ruled that as well.
Jus soli OR Jus sanguinis are good for making you a natural born citizen. Otherwise, there are a whole lot of military kids who are not eligible to be president since they were born in overseas hospitals. Now...you gonna tell me that the founding fathers had that in mind? To DQ the kids of military members born while their parents served overseas?
That will be a tough sell...and I will never buy.