There’s no need to be insulting, here. I’m not your enemy, honest.
I know precisely why the framers included that part in the Constitution. They were aware that the British crown could otherwise send some noblemen over, to become citizens for the purpose of running for President and effectively undoing the revolution.
To this end, at the time they drew the line at persons either born in the new “United States” OR— and this is important— persons who were already citizens when the Constitution was ratified. What does this mean? It means that a former British subject who became a (naturalized) U.S. citizen (a much simpler task back then, btw) by the time of the Constitution (conceivably even after the revolution)... THAT person was “grandfathered in” and could run for President.
So to part of your question, did they contemplate that somebody could grow up during their formative years as a british subject and still become President? Yes... they did.
I’m merely going by the interpretation that as far as I can tell... has historically been used by courts at all levels. There are only two ways to become a citizen, therefore only two “kinds” of citizen. You’re either born into it, or you become naturalized into it later. Nowadays though, the naturalized citizens that were once eligible are long gone. So now, the only people eligible are those who are born to citizenship: natural born citizens. The word “natural” doesn’t mean anything about the parents. It refers to the “born” into citizenship status of the child.
I’ve following all these threads for years now, and they’ve become an echo-chamber of bad ideas that get traction only within these threads, because there’s nobody that cares to argue the points anymore. It’s gotten, well... boring. Every now and then I’ll poke my head in and make a comment, hoping for some new evidence, but there never is any. LIke now.
So in your opinion... if Osmama bin Laden snuck into the country and impregnated the underage daughter of one of his sleeper cell followers... the founders of this country would have no objection to this child eventually becoming president with the financial support of his rich Saudi uncles.
I understand your definition of natural born, but I believe that it is a more recent distortion of the original definition. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the founding fathers would have supported your view.