This ship sailed long ago. There’s no unambiguous definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, not in legislation, nor decided upon by the Supreme Court... and even if there was, the current makeup of the supreme court means that a definition would be drawn in such a way that it would include all the edge cases that get discussed on this forum (Harris, Cruz, Obama, Rubio, Haley, etc...)
The argument made in this piece is even more specious because it contends that the citizenship laws of another nation are effectively superior to America’s. If Zimbabwe were to, for some reason, encode into it’s set of laws a declaration that every American citizen also a Zimbabwean citizen at birth, then by this author’s logic, nobody could be president.
By some people’s logic, orphans, adopted children, or children who don’t know their true parentage would also not be considered natural born citizens unless both genetic parents were identified and confirmed as US citizens without dual loyalties to another nation.
I don’t know where surrogacy, invitro fertilization or C-section births fit in this discussion, but it makes an absurd argument even moreso.
Sure there is, only lawyers can make plain English indiscernible.