Judges didn’t put it there. The original authors of the Constitution did.
In fact they rejected Hamilton’s “born a citizen” wording in favor of John Jays’ “natural born citizen” language. More specifically they blended the wording, but as to the citizenship qualification, they chose Jay’s “Natural Born Citizen” over Hamilton’s “born a citizen” language. Jay wrote, a mere suggestion not a full fledged proposal for specific language:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be side & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”
Jay was not a delegate to the convention, but that was written to G. Washington, who was the presidnet of the convention.
Whereas Hamiliton, who was a delegate did write a formal proposal, and the Presidential qualification section stated:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
The final language:
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 appears that they thought the permanent citizenship requirement should come before the temporary one, and that “natural born citizen” would be a better protection than “born a citizen”.
Why would judges be involved when to date, no federal court ruling has turned on the definition/meaning of “natural born citizen?
“And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….
The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…”
Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.” Art. II, s 1.
Baumgartner v United States (1944)
“The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion…”
Here only two types of citizen are recognized.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’” Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Also from Minor v Happersett (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913)
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827
Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634 (1973)
“I do not believe that it is irrational for New York to require this class of civil servants to be citizens, either natural born or naturalized.”
And several relevant lower court rulings from US Federal Courts:
Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. (1985)
“The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States. He also has relatives in Mexico.”
Tanaka v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1965)
“Jalbuena was a natural-born citizen of the United States who moved to the Philippines and, by operation of law, became a Philippine citizen. His action in applying for and receiving a Philippine passport after subscribing to an oath to support the Philippine Constitution, it was held, did not constitute renunciation of his American citizenship;”
United States v. Low Hong, Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.Circuit Court of Appeals (1919).
Low Hong was born in the United States in 1894 presumably to non-citizen parents (Chinese immigrants could not become citizens under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and because of the court’s citation of US v. Wong Kim Ark).
“The averments of the amended petition show that the appellee is a natural-born citizen of the United States.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 Sup.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.
You need to read an article "can the simple cite be trusted". Since the court in Ark never stated that he was an NBC, it was improper for the lower court to state that the appellee in that case was one, based on Ark anyway.