While that is most certainly true, such exceptions do not invalidate the rule.
The Constitution mandates that the nation select one person to be President each four years. Given that divided loyalties were a concern, especially after a bloody revolution, it makes sense that the Founders would want to eliminate that one concern. That some foreign born citizens might be eliminated, despite their loyalty, would have carried no weight whatsoever.
The Founders would not have viewed being elected President as a RIGHT. It is a privilege bestowed upon one person by the Electors. Constraining the Electors to a subset of the entire population would be viewed as prudent, not punitive.
Where is the outrage that a President must be at least 35 years old? This was a prudent measure to eliminate at least some of those whose experience and maturity would be inadequate for the job. Were our Founders at all concerned that some deserving 30 year old would be barred from the office? Of course not.
It might be a shame to eliminate McCain or Cruz, but it simply doesn't matter if eliminating them will insure that we don't elect someone who has a non-citizen parent and was raised to maturity in a foreign land.
Yet there are tens of millions of indisputably natural-born citizens of this country who despise it and want to see it brought down. Arguably including our present Leader.
Meanwhile, there are many millions of naturzlied citizens who ARE loyal to this country.
So while the Founders may have had ensuring loyalty to USA as the reason for this provision, it has most certainly proven to be ineffective.
RE: While that is most certainly true, such exceptions do not invalidate the rule.
I never said it did. What I am advocating for is a re-think of that part of the constitution in light of what we have known the past 250 years.
It might be time for an amendment ( Which should also include IMHO, whether or not we want birth right citizenship).