On the jefferson line edit: good, and bully for him (says i).
alas, the FFs stumbled on not providing a solid definition, and we are left with what we have today plus strict constructionist analysis.
strict constructionist analysis (to be uber strict, i would arbitrarily bar stuff after 1783) would seem to go as follows:
natural born citizen -> (England parallel to) natural born subject -> (English common law) native born -> jus solis “plus” (in practice inclusive of reciprocal situations)
the side effect of reciprocity is that any children born of Americans stationed abroad (McCain, any quasi-illegitimate children fathered by certain illustrious US FFs, etc) would be conferred NBC status along with anyone “born of the soil” in the US.
that is just where my own uber strict interpretation would seem to lead me. different assumptions might well lead to differing results.
I would be very interested in a link to that Adams draft of the Treaty of Paris, if it exists online and you happen to have a link (I will also try to find it by myself). (JMHO, it sounds as if it might be somewhat incidentally relevant one way or another.)
General search:
https://founders.archives.gov/index.xqy?q=%22natural+born+citizens%22&s=1111211111&sa=&r=1&sr=
The document of interest:
https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22natural%20born%20citizens%22&s=1111311111&sa=&r=1&sr=
Mark Levin’s Ted Cruz-enabling NBC definition:
U.S. NBC=Anyone born anywhere in the universe other than someone born overseas to two non-U.S. citizens.
Check this out too:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-21/george-washington-book-case-closed-after-221-years/835090
George Washington book case closed after 221 years
Fri 21 May 2010
Friday 21 May 2010
New York’s oldest library can finally fill a gap left on its shelves two centuries ago when George Washington borrowed a book and failed to bring it back.
The first US president took The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel from the New York Society Library on October 5, 1789 and, like many a less illustrious borrower, did not remember to return it, the library said in a statement.
The Constitutional Convention signed off on the term in 1787.
The states finally collectively adopted the proposed Constitution in 1788.
So evidence dated within or near to that time frame is all fair game.
Before, also probative.
As "Citizen" was not defined in the English language in the manner we now understand it, and as "Subject" was the normal and usual way of referring to a servant of the Crown, it is pretty evidence the founders meant the word "Citizen" in the same manner as the only other *REPUBLIC* in the world (Switzerland) understood it.
In the English of 1776, the word "Citizen" meant "Dweller in a City." Or "City-denizen."
In Switzerland, it meant "Member of a nation", but in London, it meant "One who lives in a City."
The Founders intended it in the Republican meaning of the word, and therefore it isn't based on British common law.
And there is even a book from 1817 which explicitly says this was the founders intent.