This topic is broader than the constitution. For example, some on FR have claimed that the founders would never have considered someone born outside the US (or former colonies) as eligible for president. Clearly, early Americans, if not the founders themselves, did consider such persons eligible.
“This topic is broader than the constitution. For example, some on FR have claimed that the founders would never have considered someone born outside the US (or former colonies) as eligible for president. Clearly, early Americans, if not the founders themselves, did consider such persons eligible.”
You are using a strawman argument when you falsely claim “This topic is broader than the constitution . . . some on FR have claimed that the founders would never have considered someone born outside the US (or former colonies) as eligible for president.” The Constitution was written expressly to include persons who were not natural born citizens of the United States and were U.S. citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Constitution was written in this way due to the fact many of the foreign born U.S. citizens were responsible for creating and defending the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Their concern was for the destiny of what they created and ensuring a foreign born U.S. citizen in future years could not be in the position of President and commander-in-chief of the American army where the Republic could be most effectively betrayed by foreign influence. Furthermore, this natural born citizen clause was in no way unique except in its brevity. The prevailing law in Britain at the time the Constitution was adopted and in the prior centuries denied eligibility of a foreign born person for any governmental office ranging from the Privy Council down to the lowliest local officer. The authors of the Constitution decided to open up eligibility for the foreign born U.S. citizens for any office except the Vice President and the President of the United States. They did so in the Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which said:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
James Iredell and Samuel Johnston were both citizens of the colonies before and during the American Revolutionary War, were very prominent Patriots and leaders in the American Revolutionary War, were important contributors to the Constitution, and were citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. Accordingly, they were regarded as being proven trustworthy to safeguard the Republic alongside their fellow natural born U.S. citizens. Knowing the problems of allegiance and loyalty experienced during the American Revolutionary War by their own first hand experiences, they denied just those two offices to persons like themselves who were born after the adoption of the Constitution, just as prior British law denied virtually all government offices to foreign born persons. So, the Founders of the Republic made a one time exception to a legal tradition that was thousands of years old in various societies and hundreds of years old in English legal history.
Keep digging.
You ave cited NO authority for this proposition. See SCOTUS cases that touch on the citizenship of those born abroad. Those persons, if they be citizens, are citizens by naturalization. Case law is 100% uniform on this point.
What?
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;
It is very clearly states that citizens of the US at the time of adoption are eligible to serve as POTUS. You are just being obtuse.