As discussed in comments here, there seems to actually be something to the idea (precedent/agnostic as to bottom line) those born abroad are "naturalized" and thus not natural born/qualified as President. But, as I tried to show, the precedents are either somewhat unclear or clash with statutory law now and back in 1790. Bottom line, I still see the idea as stupid, but guess the novel situation requires some clarity to clear the air. Update: The back/forth just got longer but it just seems like one side is credible. Not enough for me to deny citizenship. The law professor on t.v., e.g., suggests service abroad in the military is an exception. Why isn't mere citizenship enough of a connection? Is a civilian military contractor different? Citizenship at birth / natural born. In my book.