“In the Founders’ and Framers’ days, I can only assume that travel from afar was rare, the few sailing ships of the time used for commerce or warfare between England and France, and that people assumed that native citizens (people born here) were, by definition, born to parents who were already here, and not some border-crosser who arrived within days of producing a child. Any infidelity that produced a child would still have been between two existing citizens of the country, and not a temporary already-married student visiting for a few years.”
Key word here, “I assume”
This is all just speculation. What does native mean? Born in the United States. What evidence is there for a distinction drawn that you are drawing here? Absolutely none.
My distinction is simple: as I stated in my "assumption," they didn't have a JFK airport or Ellis Island in the 1780s with ships coming in every day by the dozens or hundreds. It would be weeks or months before a ship arrived.
In those times, if you were born here you born to natives who were already here.
I'm saying that in the language of the time, it was assumed that native or natural born in America were born to the already established citizens of the country.
I read in the Commentaries of Blackstone that in England it was assumed that a child of aliens born in England was considered to be a natural-born subject, but in France the child of an alien born if France is still an alien. The assumptions were different in Europe because the countries were very close and many shared borders where cross-border travel was common.
Cross-border travel in America was not so easy because you had to cross the Atlantic in a 3-mast ship, which was an expensive endeavor.
An assumption? Yes, but a reasonable one to make.
-PJ
That is what the word "native" means NOW. In the past, it didn't have the same meaning. Justice Waite (Minor v Happersett) explains what "native" meant in 1875.
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.
What evidence is there for a distinction drawn that you are drawing here? Absolutely none.
There is plenty of evidence for a distinction being drawn. Claiming there is none is either ignorant or dishonest.