True.
But one must remember that at the time European cultures were paternalistic societies and that it was understood that citizenship was passed down as was all things from the father to the child.
At the time a child whose father died was legally an orphan.
Yes and the laws have changed.
The unassailable definition of NBC is born on the soil, of two parents. Let’s look at that from a purely legal standpoint. Is it incumbent upon those seeking remedy to prove a point, or is incumbent upon those seeking privilege to prove a point? Is being president a right, or a privilege? If it is a privilege (of course it is just that), then the burden to prove citizenship is on the person seeking the position. Cruz, Rubio, and Obama have never proven anything. In fact, Cruz has condemned himself by rejecting his Canadian citizenship. This action proves that his privilege was disabled until just recently. Of course the only reason he did it was to inoculate himself from the obvious attack of being a Canadian citizen sitting as president, an obvious conflict of interest. Question for the FR Cruz supporters- Isn’t this precisely why the NBC requirement was placed into the Constitution in the first place?