I know what you want the Constitution to say. You want it to say that to be eligible for the Presidency both parents must have been born in the USA and the child born in the USA.
I would support a Constitutional amendment that said that. (And also one that got rid of anchor babies.)
But that is not what the current Constitution says. And it wouldn’t have been hard to say exactly that. So, my conclusion is that it is not what the Founders eventually voted to approve.
No, I don't. I do not care where a child is born. What I care about is that a child who is a "natural citizen" is one who was born to people who have the ability to pass on citizenship, and that the child is raised as an American.
The idea that one's character is tied to a random piece of ground is in my mind nonsense. A person is tied by biology, not by earth.
I will point out that England itself threw out that nonsense back in the 19th century, yet we have people today attempting to assert a system which was even more liberal than what England ever used, and which they don't even use anymore.
But that is not what the current Constitution says. And it wouldn’t have been hard to say exactly that. So, my conclusion is that it is not what the Founders eventually voted to approve.
The constitution doesn't define anything other than "treason", but in the common vernacular of 1787, the meaning of "Natural citizen" was in accordance with the widely debated and understood principles of "natural law."
Most subsequent misunderstanding of the term is directly traceable to William Rawle who intentionally misled everyone when he wrote his book "A View of the Constitution" which became widely distributed. I say intentionally because he was well aware of the correct meaning, yet deliberately put the wrong one in his book.
He appears to be the ONLY prominent source for this notion that we followed British Common law regarding citizenship, and this opinion was completely inconsistent with that of all the other Prominent legal minds surrounding him in the early 1800s.
He did it for one reason and one reason only. Since the 1790s, he was a prominent member of the Abolition society, and he continuously argued for the English Common law position that anyone born here becomes a citizen. His intent was to get slaves recognized as citizens (and therefore non-slaves) merely from the fact of their birth in the United States.
He tried this argument before the Pennsylvania Supreme court (around 1805) and they utterly rejected it. The argument was successful in Massachusetts though, and as a result of it, that state abolished slavery by Judicial decree.
The effort to abolish slavery has done much to enshrine the idea that we followed English Common law, because that was the only legal argument possible for granting them citizenship when they obviously cannot make use of the argument of Rights descended from blood.