There is a specific tie of citizen parentage and place of birth in Vattel’s references which were very much known to the Founders. However the knot or blank so to speak in the debate about NBC as to a Constitutional requirement is that there is no specific wording that incorporates Vattel’s words exactly or some other corresponding expression into the requirement for POTUSA. My take is that with the records of deliberation of the Congress and the fact that Articles I and II address two different categories of citizen, the Founders intentionally wanted POTUSA to be a special kind of citizen. At the time their actions were in consonance with their words, I believe they thought so. I find it very easy to accept such even though my only brother who died on Okinawa in WWII and myself who also served in the Pacific would not qualify for POTUSA because of immigrant parents not being naturalized at our birth.
I agree with you.
The closest wording that I can find is in the Preamble, which says that the Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." "Ourselves" are clearly "We the People." Our "posterity" is our children, our children's children, and so forth.
The Framers meant to seculre liberty to the citizens of America and their citizen children. The way to secure liberty is by restricting the highest office of the land to the tightest of qualifications. To me, that meant "our Posterity," as laid out in the Preamble, or the citizne children of citizen parents. Even if "ourselves" aren't natural born, our "posterity" are.
-PJ