Political Junkie Too wrote: "I don't think the parents had to be native-born themselves . . ."
Questions would still remain of 'naturalized parents' ... That's why I used myself as an example.
My parents were each refugees arriving separately during the 50's. They met here in the US and married. Assimilation to their adopted culture involved signing up for adult evening classes to learn the language and take citizenship classes.
They eventually 'naturalized' as citizens around the time I was four or five years old. In other words, when I was born, they were not yet 'naturalized' citizens...only legal residents. That makes me a 'native born' citizen, not a 'natural born' citizen.
Back in my school days, this is how it was explained to me. This explanation also increased the 'value' of American citizenship. Only those of "natural born" heritage could one day be president.
See my item #1 in my post #121. I use the language of the Constitution to show the difference between We the People, their posterity, citizens, and natural born citizens.
The issue is important because Kamala Harris is making waves about running for President.
Her mother came from India to go to graduate school here. Her father came from Jamaica for the same reason. They met at Berkeley and married after they graduated. Kamala was born five years after they arrived. Since a foreigner cannot apply for naturalization until after being resident here for five years, it was not possible for either of her parents to even begin the naturalization process when Kamala was born. Therefore, like with Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and apparently you, Harris had two non-citizen parents when she was born here. That means that she is not the "posterity" of "We the People," and is therefore not a natural born citizen - she is just a citizen.
-PJ