By the way, when the founders use the word “natural” they do so in a very special way.
As you know many of the founders were Masons who believe in a grand “architect” of the universe (God)— although they left it up to the individual to worship/conceive of this grand creator in their own way
They had studied natural law and believed — by extension — that the natural or “nature” proceeded from this source.
They, therefore, attempted to cooperate rather than be at odds with nature.
It is Natural that citizenship — including acculturation and all that implies — to be passed from the parents to the child.
Therefore, it would appear and be reasonable that the term Natural Born — as used by the founders — implied two citizen parents(PLURAL)and, of course: born in the country of/by citizen parents.
Also, although the words Native and Natural may be interchangeable today, they didn’t, necessarily, mean the same thing to the founders in THEIR day and time.
The meanings of words do change and a word that means one thing today, may acquire — even over a short time — the exact OPPOSITE meaning!
Translations of words from other languages can complicate the matter of understanding the intent of the author of same even more. (see post #466)
STE=Q
A common fallacy by the After-Birthers is that native and natural born are interchangeable in meaning. The Supreme Court has consistently used the two terms as distinct in meaning. They do not know how to read a court legal opinion. I've gone over about 6 SCOTUS legal opinions about citizenship from circa 1870 to 1953 and they all show distinction between native v. natural with the Perkins v. Elg, 1939 case being the key.
They really confuse the long and dry and confusing dictum in the 1898 Wong ARK opinion as the facts and the holdings of the case. Nowhere in the dictum does the majority opinion refer to Ark as natural born, but it does say he is a native born in the first part of the body of the opinion where the facts are presented. In fact, Kim Ark is barely mentioned in the dictum.