I don't see that happening here. Nice post.
Any definition of Natural Born that doesn't act to reinforce the likelihood that the presidential aspirant has loyalty to, and loyalty ONLY TO the US is a flawed definition, no matter how many times Jus Soli adherents posit to the contrary.
It flies in the face not only of the cautionary words of the Founders (Paine, Jay et al) but of logic itself.
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
Born on US sovereign soil to parents who are themselves citizens represents the Gold Standard. No person who can claim dual citizenship should be legally eligible to aspire to our nation's highest office. It's a matter of presumed undivided loyalty.
Notice that the relevant language in Minor states "were natives, or natural-born citizens" rather than "include." Lawyers and judges are very, very careful about each and every word that they pen when handing down a ruling. You can bet that this wording was intentional and is a good example of judicial restraint.