Maybe I'm not the one who needs to be set straight. The INS is not charged with interpreting the US Constitution.
When was this question answered in the US court system? I don't think it's been answered. Some say that anchor babies are not even citizens because of the "subject to the jurisdiction of" phrase, but anchor babies are considered citizens in reality. Not sure if the courts have ruled on the "subject to the jurisdiction of" question, either.
My #805 presents information that says anyone born in the US can run for president, except the children of foreign diplomats. Several questions concerning citizenship don't seem to have been answered in the courts. As I've said before, constitutional phrases such as "establishment of religion," "unreasonable searches and seizures," "free exercise thereof" and many others have been the subject of numerous courts cases and rulings, and will continue to be so. People make the same claims about the original intent of those phrases, and how clear they all are, but still the court interpretations in narrow, specific situations continue.
And the term "natural born citizen" is also subject to interpretation in narrow, specific situations. Someone cite court cases that specifically say that anchor babies cannot run for president. If you can't, then it's still open and they most likely can.
The first hurdle would be getting the SCOTUS to even hear a case, as the Obama situation so well illustrates.
This is a good chart which represents how the laws of the Immigration and Naturalization Acts have changed over time.
http://www.shusterman.com/citz-chart1.html
If you look at the chart - during the period from 1952 to 1986, the governing rules were different than they are today.
Even if O was born in Hawaii, he is NOT eligible for POTUS and neither am I since nobody born between 1952 and 1986 was grandfathered in.