We have admitted Hawaii, and it is a state. (Notwithstanding the fact that it owes it's existence as a state to a deal made between Republicans and Democrats back in the 1950s when Republicans were trying to get Alaska admitted as a state, but the Democrats balked because Alaska was Republican. Statehood for Hawaii was traded to them (reliably Democrat) in exchange for Alaska) It possesses the same rights as other states, including the ability to grant citizenship under the 14th amendment.
It DOES however, have one unique disqualifier. Since it WILL issue birth certificates to people who were not actually BORN THERE, it should be required that any proof of birth must contain explicit indications that a child was actually born within the State as established by objective witnesses who are not members of the family.
If Hawaii will produce documents, and attest that they are ORIGINAL, and that they affirm an event which actually took place within the boundaries of their state, then I have no objections to Presidents who happen to be born in Hawaii.
Since they are unwilling to do such at present, I would suggest exclusion until proof is produced. (Yeah, like any election bureaucrats will ever do their job! :) )
If I were choosing, I'd exclude parts of New York or California instead. :)
If only we could. There are foreigners who would have more loyalty to this nation than would some residents of New York and California. :)
This one has been argued to death. Since you are basing your current argument on "two citizen parents," I am not going to rehash, unless you are basing your argument on "birth certificate is fake," or "DOH perjured when they put Honolulu on the certificate rather than the actual place of birth in the case of late certificates issued to foreign adoptees."
I suspect what you mean is "If there was a presidential candidate from Hawaii who was a reliable Conservative, I have no objections." And for that, I'd agree with you.