Please provide link to original source material.
Have you not read the John Jay letter to Washington, or the quotes from the 1866 congressional record where Bingham defines natural born (Bingham of fourtienth amendment authorship)? Such words help us to realize that the framers of our Constitution intended to not have someone with divided loyalties become president and CIC. Now, the obamanoids will shoot back ‘that’s not worded int he Constitution’, but your question was in regards to the thinking of the framers when the Constitution was fashioned.
. . .
Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen. “We can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. “ ~~~~~~~~~~~ The “natural born” Clause’s origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
. . .
"However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795."
. . .
I did provide a link to Blackstone. One would need to look at the minutes of the Convention to see if either the English Common law or the "Law of Nations" was mentioned during the various changes that section of the Constitution underwent before assuming it's final form.