Sounds like the Constitutional case of presidential eligibility has not been specifically adjudicated as such. If it were, the question would center on divided loyalty. I.e.: why would the Framers either reserve the presidency to citizens with undivided loyalty [the children of US citizens] or why would they specifically open the highest office of the land to persons with de facto divided loyalty.
Iow, what advantage would the Framers have seen in enshrining the right to the presidency to persons of innately divided loyalty? Sure, a person with one US citizen parent could be loyal to the US. Or he/she could be loyal to their other half. Or as in Obama’s case, the person might love his foreign half and outright hate his US half, and use the office of POTUS to destroy the country from w’in.
So what logic would the Framers have used to argue that persons with fundamentally divided loyalty should have equal access to the presidency? Has a court specifically offered an opinion on what have motivated the Framers to invite the children of foreigners to occupy the office of POTUS? If so, what was the argument put forth to explain why the Framers thought this was a good idea? Are they just considered too stupid to have foreseen an Obama-like figure, who would so prefer his foreign half that he would use the presidential office to destroy the Union? It might not be put so bluntly, but that is the bottom line. Has any court specifically addressed it?
“So what logic would the Framers have used to argue that persons with fundamentally divided loyalty should have equal access to the presidency? Has a court specifically offered an opinion on what have motivated the Framers to invite the children of foreigners to occupy the office of POTUS? “
Yes. It was discussed at length in WKA. Half of the decision involved that question.