“Are you being deliberately obtuse?”
I don’t know about deliberately, but I do know how to be obtuse.
“The Founders did not want Naturalized Citizens to become President.”
Why wouldn’t they want naturalized citizens to be president? Doesn’t seem fair since naturalized citizens have the same rights as those born here.
And, if there are only two types of citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized, what is a “citizen at birth”?
It sounds like you’re saying that someone born in the US to foreigners who are just visiting or here illegally is a natural born citizen, the same as someone born in the US to two US Citizens?
If that’s the case, seems like they could have used “citizen” and “naturalized citizen”. Why confuse us with the “natural born”?
I just don’t get all the different names people nowadays and the courts and those foolish old Founding Fathers used, I guess.
The Founders spelled out the qualifications for President, in positive language rather than negative language.
Any President is required to be a Natural Born Citizen, which means that Naturalized Citizens do not qualify to be POTUS.
And in answer to your question, I think “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can handle man of these other issues. For instance, I think the illegal alien “anchor baby” issue can be resolved by Congressional notice of the fact that no United States divorce court would have jurisdiction over custody of a couple's children, if the husband and wife were not citizens of the United States. Therefore, the child even if born here would not be fully “under the jurisdiction thereof” -— a few conservative members of Congress happen to agree with me on that point as well.