It seems to me the Framers' intent MUST have to do with the loyalty issue: The POTUS — the CEO, CIC, and CLO of the United States — must be someone about whom there can be no doubt whatsoever as to his devotion and loyalty to the nation. There can be no suspicion of "divided loyalties" on behalf of another sovereign state or interest, overt or concealed.
Thus the language of "natural-born": birth from two American parents (wherever they are in the world at the time of birth) instantly confers American "natural-born" citizenship on the child. A child born to Americans could be presumed to have no "divided loyalties." This is, again, the doctrine of jus sanguinis in action.
Trying to straighten everything out, it seems there are three basic categories of American citizenship: (1) natural-born (jus sanguinis doctrine — which is why John McCain is a natural-born citizen of the United States irrespective of his Panamanian birth); (2) native-born (14th Amendment, jus solis doctrine — place of birth determines citizenship; e.g., the "anchor baby" phenomenon); and (3) Naturalized (foreign-born individuals who have chosen to become U.S. citizens). Presumably, children born in America to naturalized citizens are themselves not only "native-born," but also "natural-born" [My mother would be in this category since both her parents were American citizens, albeit naturalized ones, at the time of her birth.]
Just trying to figure out all this stuff! :^) This is where I am at the moment....
If I'm right, then I can happily report that I am a natural-born and native-born American citizen! :^)
Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your wonderful insights!
At the moment, I'm wondering if and how Obama's dual citizenship at birth - as a result of his father's domicile - ended. Surely he is not still a citizen of the U.K. or else he would be paying taxes to them (visions of Al Capone's oversight.)