That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country.
If you look it up, you will see that Holland was ruled for a time by Spaniards, appointed stadtholders by Spain, and the office – as Tucker mentions – became hereditary. So his (and other Founders’) concerns were not for those born of foreigners on US soil who are US citizens, but for foreigners born elsewhere who are not, but who might be naturalized only for the purpose of seeking the presidency. See what Joseph Story has to say on this:
It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.
This is well explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #68
these most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
Showing that the chief concern was not US citizens born of foreign immigrants, but rather concern about foreign governments trying to insert their own officials into the US government.
Your response above simply engenders a "huh?" moment for me. You articulate some of the founder's dire concern at keeping out foreign influence in the executive, and you overlook completely how such influence can also be manifest through ties of family, as it is with our current Usurper.
This man was Born (somewhere not yet fully determined to be Hawaii, but even if it is, Hawaii is as far outside the norm among US States as you can get.) of a Foreign Father, whom he idolized in his Fantasy Book, then Adopted and Raised as an Indonesian speaking Muslim for many influential years of his childhood by a Foreign Step-Father in a non-Democratic Islamic nation, spent much of his life referring to his Kenyan Homeland, Would have inherited lands in Kenya (and possibly in Indonesia had the right events occurred.) had he been able to actually PROVE his father was Barack Obama Sr., currently has illegal immigrant relatives living in this nation, has campaigned on behalf of the foreign Despots in Kenya to whom he is related by blood, And you think all of this fits the concept of Keeping out foreign influence in our Executive?
Again, "Huh?" As I said before, "You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.
The Man is barely an American at all, and if that, only by the skin of his teeth. If he was born in Canada, (Not yet ruled out.) He is not EVEN an American.
He is the most UnLoyal (and corrupt) "American" ever to rise so high in our Government. I know EXACTLY how those Dutch Revolutionaries felt about King Philip II!
Two questions I note you did not address.
1. A child born to citizen parents on US soil, taken overseas after a few months, raised there until age 35, returns and runs for president at age 49. Same issues, Constitutionally eligible. Should the Constitution be changed for this situation? Did the Founders err?
2. Are you one of those “living Constitution” people? One who wants to “modernize” without formal amendment because of modern changes - in this case more and faster global travel?
Are you suggesting that anyone born in Hawaii should be excluded from the presidency as too "far outside the norm?" Some Hawaiian freepers might have something to say about that.
If I were choosing, I'd exclude parts of New York or California instead. :)