I guess you disagree with the judges.
The original intent was to limit to those loyal to this country. By the Obama example, the legal language has been shown to have failed the original intent. Now we are arguing legal semantics.
You guys said you wanted a ruling. Now that they are showing up, you won’t accept them. Maybe a ruling Jeff really mattered at all...
That's part of it, maybe most of it. Another part is to preclude any other country from asserting a claim. The War of 1812 was fought in part over British claims of power over US citizens, who were, according to the British, British citizens because they had British blood in them. As British citizens, they had a duty to fight war for the British, and many were compelled to do so.
That sort of risk could be messy if the US president was part British, e.g., by being born in Britain (but made a US citizen by e.g., Naturalization Act of 1790, or 1795, or 1802, etc.)