I believe a natural born citizen is someone born within the territory of the United States, or to citizens temporarily traveling abroad. This is not a controversial position among legal scholars.
The fact that you and others believe strongly that this isn't true only supports the point I was making above.
So you believe the NBC requirement was inserted in the Constitution to safeguard the rights of foreign enemies of the USA to spawn our presidents?
It doesn't matter what current positions are - since the NBC phrase has remained unaltered by amendment or interpreted by SCOTUS for over 222 years.
It only matters what the Founders knew and how they knew it at the time the Constitution was authored - as evidenced in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2nd Amendment SCOTUS case where they examined the meaning of these unaltered words:
" ...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ..."
If you do the research from the 1700's, you will find that a natural-born subject of England [per English Common Law] was born anywhere [per British Nationality Act of 1728] to a father who was a natural-born subject.
OR, if you subscribe to Vattel [from that period], he states that the condition of the child ALWAYS follows the father.
In EITHER CASE, a natural-born subject [or citizen] CANNOT have divided allegiances, which is what Obama had when he was born. He was a natural-born British subject through his father [British Nationality Act of 1948] AND a citizen of the United States, per the 14th Amendment ...
A child born as such CANNOT be NBC, per the understanding of the Founders ...