OOps, hit the wrong button...
so finishing, do you really think Britian would have allowed a US citizen to the highest office of their land when they didn’t even afford the subject, the same rights & priviledges of the natural born subject.
I think not.
openning from Kent, it is important in understanding who the early law scholars & founders thought needed to be naturalized...
the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
so there you have it, natives & aliens were terms used for ‘artificial’ persons, not ‘natural’ persons for immigration & naturalization purposes and the children of such person were not classified a citizens at birth either.
Go figure, some honest commentary right from the period it was written, but more importantly from a law scholar who was no conservative either.