But by your definition a person born in the UK of two U.S. citizen parents, for example, and then raised there for the next 21 years has more of a claim on the presidency than someone born in the U.S. and raised here their entire life but whose parent's happened to be non-citizens. That makes little sense to me. Or to Madison. Or Rawle. Or Kent. Or others.
When the nation was founded, the concept of "perpetual allegiance" was universal. You were born subject (servant) to a King for your entire life with no alternative to chose another nation. America pioneered the concept of free choice as to your allegiance, and someone who decides that their child should live in another nation till it's maturity has effectively put them on the path to citizenship in another nation. The legislation that I have seen from the founding era indicates that residency is an important part of citizenship, and it would be entirely consistent with the intentions of the founders to regard such a person as having been born as a "natural born citizen" but having forsaken the "owing no other allegiance" requirement as a result of their subsequent decision to remain in a foreign nation. I would rule that they had violated the spirit of the Article, if not the letter of it.
As for Obama, allegedly born in a state which was barely made a state two years prior, (and then only as a result of a deal with Senate Democrats who INSISTED on getting a Democrat voting state in exchange for Republican's Alaska state petition.) With a large population of indigent Hawaiian culture, to a foreign father, and who was probably adopted by another foreign father, taken to live in a foreign nation for years, and grew up with a completely Un-American experience during his formative years, and then who may or may not have used foreign issued credentials for schooling and travel after his age of majority, possessing legitimate claims of citizenship in four different nations, you somehow think HE sneaks in under the bar?
You have a peculiarly low standard for loyalty/allegiance in my opinion.
That makes little sense to me. Or to Madison. Or Rawle. Or Kent. Or others.
Madison is not so much your champion as you suggest. By his poor choice of words you lay claim to him, and thereby totally disregard his larger argument. That Mr. Smith was OF South Carolina, that his inherited lands lay there. (Another argument for Citizenship descending through the father from which inherited lands come.)
As for the others, I haven't read them extensively, but I have seen your quotes. Since the founding, there was an ongoing effort to push British law into American courts. I have little doubt that their misunderstanding of this issue is the result of Americans using so much of British law, but fortunately Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Marshall, knew the correct application of American law regarding citizenship was based on the definition provided by Vattel which he quoted in the Venus case.