I have, and unlike you, I do.
They could have just said citizen if you were correct.
Not if they meant natural-born citizen, or one having citizenship from birth. Isn't that your whole argument?
They did not, they meant it to be restrictive, that’s why the used natural born citizen.
But they didn't qualify it to be anything more than citizenship at birth, the dictionary definition and the only one extant for two hundred years prior. They would have specified further constraints if they had intended them for the most powerful single public office they built into the government.
The “Laws of Nations” that George Washington borrowed from the NY library is where they got their definition.
Presumably you mean Vattel's "The Law of Nations", which is one of the sources I mentioned earlier that are not founding documents and incidentally do not say what you claim they say. So George Washington read a book from the library. What other books did he read from the library? Should we incorporate those as de facto Constitutional amendments? Thomas Jefferson read the Koran. Should we implement Sharia Law now? That's a pretty inane argument to refute the fact that the Founders chose not to include additional specific restrictions on who could become President.
The reason is explained in John Jay’s letter to George Washington.
And yet, it still failed to be included in the actual Constitution. Maybe you should post a quote from that document (Jay's letter) and explain how you derive that imaginary part of the Constitution from it without it actually being in there, rather than a hand-waving argument to support those claims.
Read some history of the founders.
You should follow your own advice rather than repeating confirmation-bias-based claims you have heard wherever.
They chose their words carefully, they did not use citizen at birth, they used natural born citizen as it has a different meaning.