earlyretirement
Moderator
That interpretation is unsettled and not clear. Just because some Harvard scholars are interviewed and saying their interpretation makes it ok doesn't mean it's ok. There is a reason why even the Supreme Court hasn't touched the issue. I'm not saying it's impossible but many people believe that the original constitution forbids it. But honestly the US presidency has became a circus and I can't see anyone that would want to be President of USA.Harvard Law Review, that's where I got the information... " All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States." Source
That's why Ted Cruz was allowed to seek the GOP nomination despite being born in Canada and why all the court challenges to his campaign were unsuccessful source . I state it matter of factly because it is how it works.
Back to the original question... I agree that your child being born in Argentina may complicate matters in case something goes wrong, but my guess is that if your wife really wants to move back to Argentina and you don't, things may go poorly then too.
I totally agree with everyone else that this is a complicated situation if the child is born there and the wife wants to move back to Argentina (which very often does happen).