Few notes from Donofrio :
The "anchor babies" issue deals with whether those children are "citizens", not whether they are "natural born citizens" eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. They are not eligible since, at birth, they are also subject to the jurisdiction of the countries their parents were citizens of.
Appellant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court, once again, that had the legislature intended to grant "natural born citizen" status to all who were born on US soil, then the 14th Amendment would contain the words "natural born citizen", but it doesn't.
And so this proposition leads to the logical conclusion that a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the United States to parents, neither of which is an alien. Having an alien parent would tie such person at birth to the possibility of other loyalties and laws. And such a person, even if he be as loyal and devoted to this country as Senators Obama and McCain have proven to be, is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
John McCain was neither born on United States soil, nor was he naturalized. He is a citizen at birth by statute. ... McCain is in the class of citizens who obtain their citizenship at birth, but not from the Constitution, but rather federal statute. ... So, not being born on US soil, McCain cannot be a "natural born citizen".
A lot more arguments there if you care to read them.
I've seen them. For the most part, they are bullshit. A "natural born citizen" is one born on US territory (and in the case of John McCain in particular, the article is TOTAL bullshit, because he WAS born on US territory, as, at the time of his birth, the Panama Canal WAS "US territory"). The courts have accepted that definition for many decades---it's settled law.
The problem with Obama is that he was likely NOT born on US territory.