No, Coulter may be factually correct on this one. Although I think it doesn't matter. Look up the difference between naturalized citizen and natural-born citizen, there is a difference. From a definition of natural-born citizen:
"The Constitution also mentions "natural born citizen". The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably."
That means born in the U.S.A.
Naturalized citizen refers to those born of American citizens abroad. At one time it excluded those who had a non-American father, which was changed soon after to include either mother or father as an American. If either case applies, one can be a senator. Not so with the Presidency or Vice Presidency.
It really doesn't matter, because the original intent was to prevent foreign influence over who governs our nation. There is plenty of foreign influence that went on with American presidents born here. As Hillary would say, "what difference does it make!".
From Nguyen:
Justice Scalia:
“I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
Dude, that’s because when Jefferson wrote this THERE WERE NO AMERICAN CITIZENS yet - let alone OVERSEAS HAVING BABIES. DUHHHHHH.
The meaning of natural-born citizneship was gone over with a fine-tooth comb with Obama. I was in law school at the time and all the research and conclusions seemed to arrive at one being a natural-born citizen if one of the parents was an American citizen. The Cato Institute agrees. I don’t like citing authorities per se as the reason one argument is right and one is wrong, but Cato is authoritative and cites the Nationality Act of 1940.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
The finer point of “naturalized” vs. “natural-born” when it comes to those born to an American citizen on foreign soil doesn’t appear to be dispositive and is certainly not a clear issue. I found nothing determinative in my research to conclude that the constitutional intent was to exclude foreign-born children of say an American diplomat. It would seem there would have been cases and controversies back then clarifying the issue if such was the case.
.
>> “Naturalized citizen refers to those born of American citizens abroad.” <<
.
No, it does not.
It is for those born in another country of parents that are not American citizens.
Anyone born to a mother that is an adult American citizen is automatically an American citizen, regardless of the location of the birth.
This question was clarified by the founders themselves in a congressional resolution.