No, the fact that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states that "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..." hasn't escaped me. Its one of the few bits of constitutional text that has withstood statist "reinterpretation", remarkably. I do realize its the law.
There is a distinction however between the law as it is and the law as it should be. There are some people to whom the answer "Because the Constitution says so" suffices with regard to the question posed above. I think this mentality betrays a lazy, contemptible indifference to truth. Who could be satisfied with that response? It may avail in constitutional law, but not in political philosophy.
The Constitution does say so but should the Constitution say so? This question is not as vulnerable to the same flippancy. One objection against repealing the clause appeals to the threat of deliberate foreign subversion. According to Martin Kasindorf,
"The barrier to foreign-born citizens becoming president stems from fears that the Founding Fathers had during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. They were concerned that subversive enemies could force the fledgling republic back to foreign monarchical rule. Delegates didn't want the United States to suffer the same fate as Poland, which in 1772 had been partitioned among Austria, Prussia and Russia after agents of those countries bribed Polish nobles to elect a disloyal king."
The hazard of foreign saboteurs may have existed at the time of the American Revolution, but it hardly exists in the same form today. Nowadays, the influence of foreign powers on the staffing of the presidency is the concern of conspiracy theorists paranoid over the Illuminati, Freemasonry, and the Trilateral Commission.
Another objection to repeal asserts that the pool of existing potential foreign candidates is composed largely of undesirables. Governor Schwarzenegger of California would probably be the chief foreign candidate if the clause was expunged; enabling him to run for president is, for many, the only reason they would pursue a repeal. Needless to say, the "Governator" is better suited for Hollywood than Washington D.C. if his governance in California is any indication of how he would proceed in the White House. Special eligibility conditions attached to an amendment for repeal could easily dash his presidential hopes however.
Yet another possible objection claims that the undesirability of foreign candidates in general exceeds that of domestic candidates. It appears though that this could only be testable after repeal. It may seem like European candidates would most likely run as liberal Democrats prima facie, however many Europeans leave Europe for the U.S. because of the burden imposed by welfare statism.
Does being born in the U.S. make someone better qualified for the presidency? Not that I know of. In fact, there's an argument to be made which concludes that, on average, immigrants tend to appreciate the U.S. more than natives. In fact, I'd wager that people from Hong Kong or Singapore could better govern the U.S. then people from Berkeley or San Francisco (or Chicago).
I haven't made my mind up on this issue. At first glance, the preservation of this clause at this day and age seems to be either the result of nationalism, simple inertia, or an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mindset. I suppose I just want a woman president with a British accent and Kate Beckinsale looks (and brains, for that matter).