The definition (”Fact #2) used in the article states that to be a “natural born” citizen BOTH of your parents have to be natural born citizens.
By that definition, if anywhere in your direct family lineage there is someone who was not a “natural born” citizen of the United States then that person’s progeny, and THAT person’s progeny, etc. etc. (down to and including your parents and you) are NOT “natural born” citizens.
At the ratification of the U.S. Constitution there was no such thing as a “natural born” citizen; that is why the presidential qualifications include the mention of persons who were “citizens...at the time of ratification...”.
I was merely pointing out that the definition used by the person who wrote the article is not only correct, but illogical, since it makes it impossible for anyone to be “natural born” citizen.
The correct definition of “natural born” citizen MAY be that BOTH of one’s parents must be citizens. However, I am unaware of any ratified Law which actually defines it that way.
SORRY “...not only INcorrect...”
Citizen parents are required for natural-born citizenship, and that includes citizenship via naturalization. On that you and I agree. This overly strained “definition” is just another red herring, in order to confuse.