It also seems that there are two major opinions on the topic characterized by the following quotes:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen[18]
-- or --
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Ind.App., Nov 12, 2009) 916 N.E.2d 678 at 688[54]
It seems the preponderance of court rulings favor the latter interpretation. But, I can see the wisdom of avoiding dual allegiances specifically for POTUS.
Oh, I can see the argument in favor of it. However, James Madison also said that he was averse to putting citizenship requirements for leadership in the Constitution that added a "tincture of illiberality" to the document. He said he wasn't opposed to having citizenship requirements for Senator and Representative, but thought the Constitution was the wrong place for them; that they should be passed in the form of a law instead.
My whole deal is this: It's one thing to say this is a good idea, and we ought to do it. I probably wouldn't spend much time in such a discussion, because it doesn't make that much difference to me.
But it's another thing entirely to claim that this is the way the Founding Fathers set up the Constitution, and that's what it means, when that clearly is not the case.
Or, to put it a different way: If you don't like the Constitution, amend it. That's been done 27 times already.
Don't misrepresent it and claim it says something it doesn't.
I've commented on this more elsewhere.
The main concern was with royalty from Europe swooping in and taking or. Or actually being invited, by some here, to come and take over (e.g., Prince Henry of Prussia, or the one Bishop in England who I think was one of the King's sons.
Whatever friendliness toward another country that the US-born child of non-citizen parents might have had towards the country of his parents' birth, the Founding Fathers don't seem to have ever felt that it was worth getting worked up about.
The other statement from Wikipedia is one which was made by John Bingham. (Father of the 14th amendment.)
It seems the preponderance of court rulings favor the latter interpretation. But, I can see the wisdom of avoiding dual allegiances specifically for POTUS.
Yeah, the courts are full of lawyer types who somehow think "Precedent" is more important than common sense or facts. That's how we get decisions like Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Obamacare, Wickard v Fillburn and other brain rotten verdicts.
The courts operate just like the Thunder Birds Air force flying team. When the leader flies into the ground, the rest of them fly into the ground with him.
Seriously, the courts are literally that stupid.