Actually, natural means what the Founders and Framers meant by it.
And what they meant by it was what it had meant for centuries.
EVERYBODY, or at least everybody who had any legal education at all, knew what the term meant.
"NATURAL BORN" was a STANDARD LEGAL TERM. And it had a specific meaning.
And yes, that meaning came from NATURAL LAW.
Just not the natural law that a bunch of historically uninformed 21st-century folks claim.
It came from the historical English understanding of natural law.
England was our mother country. All thirteen Colonies were ENGLISH COLONIES.
So where did the term come from?
England was a Christian country, and as such, embraced philosophies, including legal philosophies, based on the Bible.
The Bible teaches that all governmental authorities, such as kings, ultimately derive their authority to govern from God. It therefore teaches that one should be subject to the governing authorities. The Bible teaches that one should render to Caesar that which is due to Caesar, and render to God that which is due to God.
From this, English legal philosophers concluded that all persons born within a realm were, by natural and divine law, intended to be subject to, and subjects of, that particular realm. It made no difference whether the person so born was born to a citizen or to an alien who was legally there under the protection of the King. If you were born under the King’s protection and within his realm, then you were a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of that particular king.
As time went on, the natural law origin of the concept became somewhat obscure. But the precedent remained - that every person born within the realm, whether that realm was England or America, and whether that person’s parents were citizens of the realm or not, was a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen” of that realm.
The only exceptions were those who were not under the protection of and “subject to the jurisdiction of” that realm. The very rare exceptions always included the children of foreign ambassadors (who were regarded as being born subjects of the country their parents were officially representing), foreign royalty, and members of invading armies - all for similar reasons. And in the United States, two additional exceptions were added: Indians born in tribes, because Indian tribes were quasi-foreign nations that we made treaties with just as we made treaties with other foreign nations such as England or France, and slaves, who were legally considerd to be property and not people.
The the USA is a constitutional republic, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land.
That in itself is a total rejection of the old system in which the King still influenced the law directly and appointed prime ministers at his own whim, with elections just a guide from a tiny electorate.
The fact that some of the original eastern states kept old colonial laws on the books proves nothing, since they are all low level laws which were gradually replaced anyway.
British Ideas on the status of British subjects were always totally different to US ones about citizenship after the revolution.
As an ex-redcoat and current natural born subject of Queen Elizabeth the Second, I find your idea that the US republic has English common law as its basis comical at best.
The Founding Fathers took what was best in the World in 1776 and created the greatest charter of Freedom in all Human history, the Constitution of the United States of America.
People like you seem to long for an absolute Monarch, a great leader, a political messiah. It never works, just ask the ghost of Charles I, if it can find its head.
The common law predated Christianity in England. You are just propagating monarchist propaganda. Take your anti-American lies and shove it.