My dad was pleased when the New York Law Review and the Congressional Research Service indicated that GEORGE Romney could run for president of the USA. Now, George Romney was born to US citizens who were part of a Mormon community in Mexico. His opponents claimed that if Romney hadn't been born on US soil, he wasn't natural born. The law review took Romney's side in effect, as it argued that being a natural-born child of a US citizen residing anywhere was still natural-born. As dad pointed out, that meant that a child born on an airplane over the mid-Atlantic or in the Philippines could still be eligible to run for president, provided that the child never subsequently relinquished his or her natural-born citizenship, as acquired from a biological parent with US citizenship at the time of the child's birth.
The 'hiding in plain sight' part of Barack Obama's birth certificate is his birth mother's US citizenship.
It doesn't matter where he was born geographically!
His father was Kenyan, no doubt, but Barack Obama never sought or claimed Kenyan citizenship.
What counts is that Barack Obama was born to a US citizen and he never relinquished his US citizenship nor claimed another.
This is why when MITT Romney ineptly joked to his hometown Michigan audience about no one asking for his birth certificate, he was really messing around. Mitt was in his late teens when his father George ran for president, so Mitt is old enough to remember the eligibility challenge. What would count on Mitt's birth certificate is if his parents were US citizens (they were), not being born in Michigan.
What could make life interesting is a candidate for US president who was born on US soil when neither parent held US citizenship. The amnesty offer for children born in the US to 'illegals' could create a constitutional crisis.
It would be smart to plan ahead and think it through.