History is not "axiomatic."
You don't read the term "natural born citizen" and say, "Hmm. Natural. Born. Citizen. That means [insert what you think it means.] Therefore, it means [whatever you decided from some idiotic birther theory that it 'means.']"
You go to history and law to FIND OUT what the hell it means.
And it simply does not, and never did mean, "born on US soil of two citizen parents."
I didn't say it was. Here you are pulling a "bait and switch". I said the requirements to be President included Citizen parents because that is an axiomatic characteristic of a "natural citizen" which *IS* a requirement to be President.
You don't read the term "natural born citizen" and say, "Hmm. Natural. Born. Citizen. That means [insert what you think it means.] Therefore, it means [whatever you decided from some idiotic birther theory that it 'means.']"
It certainly doesn't mean "based on the Law of the English Monarchy we overthrew. " Whatever fanciful definition you wish for the meaning of "natural", That obviously isn't it.
You go to history and law to FIND OUT what the hell it means.
You studiously ignore what the LAWYERS say, and you expressly look at what the LAW MAKERS said and did.
History grants you no relief. Millions of Slaves, Millions of Indians, and ~ 100,000 Children of British Loyalists born after 1776, simply did not follow this rule that you think is so prevalent and historical.
And it simply does not, and never did mean, "born on US soil of two citizen parents."
Actually, just the father. The Mother's Citizenship was automatically the same as the Husbands.
But that is beside the point. It certainly never meant "anchor babies", but following YOUR stupid theory is how we got those.