That IS insanely delusional. The U.S. had just declared INDEPENDENCE. They sure as hell WOULDN'T want a FOREIGN national's child who was born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign to head the federal government.
Their errors only multiply from there.
It absolutely defies logic. There really is no other way to describe it.
Brainwashing? What say you? How can they be so ignorant of historical fact?
They have been saturated in modern liberal thought the way a pickle is saturated in vinegar. It is so pervasive that most have no idea the degree to which it effects their thinking. THE foundational block of modern liberalism is nondiscrimination. It’s so effective because of course on one level discrimination IS wrong. But modern liberalism takes it to extremes.
For example, even though the homosexual lifestyle leads to demonstrably higher health risks & shorter lives, you simply cannot say a word against it. This would be ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals. Better to let them contract an array of diseases, burden the healthcare/social safety net & die premature deaths.
It is from this POV that the Framers-wanted-foreign-allegiance-in-the-WH crowd approaches the question. One thing they know for sure: the good Founders of the country wd never have discriminated against the innocent children of foreign nationals. That would be just plain wrong, bad & evil, & the Founders were none of those things. [Plus why wd the Founders be xenophobic, since they were all either immigrants or the children of immigrants.]
So this crowd knows a priori that NBC cannot be intended to exclude innocent children born in the US who had no control over whether their parents naturalized or not. Their entire ‘logic’ train moves from there, & nothing—literally nothing—will ever derail it. If a Framer came back from the dead & said, ‘Ah, actually we DIDN’T want persons of foreign allegiance in the WH; that would be gambling w national suicide, w no upside to balance the potentially fatal risk’, the crowd you are arguing w wd simply explain to the Framer how he is wrong. I.e.: how he must have misunderstood the intent of the rest of the Framers. No lie.
The worst of it is that those most irreparably steeped in modern liberalism for the most part don’t know it. It would be like trying to tell a fish it’s in water. The fish says, ‘No; this is simply what the atmosphere is like. It’s not water; it’s the normal, natural way life is’.
Otoh, I have learned a lot from your posts. I really appreciate the time you take & the expertise you bring. I’m sure I’m not alone.