The same naturalized couple often had older children who were naturalized citizens [born during naturalization] and younger children who were natural born [born after naturalization].
These children born during their parents' 5 year residency requirement were/are probably the ones that Obamabots erroneously call "native-born" citizens when in truth they are/were really "naturalized citizens" -- naturalized when their parents were naturalized.
[Please Be Advised: This post is protected by the SMWSS: the Selective Misspelled Wurd Security System. Words are selectively misspelled to prevent persnickety prattlers in cyberspace from reading it.]
Morality & the Family
Why would the founding fathers & newly freed subjects adopt a feudal law that basically puts their children immediately under the control of the US government from the moment of birth forever dividing the child's loyalties between parent & state? The answer is they wouldn't have & they didn't.
The original definition of natural born subject implemented upon the conquest and rise of the feudal government was very different from that of the ‘freeman’ Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons were comprised of 3 tribes, the Dunes, the English & the Saxons hence the term was adopted Anglo-Saxon and the new country was called England. Their laws were primitive, but they were based on natural law. The individual tribes(states/communities) councils consisted of the heads of each family and each household had 1 vote. There were kings elected from the councils, however not in the sense you immediately think of. The original kings held no power, they were merely the commanders of the armies. When they conquered what is now England and while they were still quite primitive, they resided along side and learned from the Christian monks who had remained. The monks introduced them to Christianity & thus it was until the Norman conquest). From Blackstone:
Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception..
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien...
Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully. As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his residence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of such his residence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the British empire.
One can clearly see here that certain aspects of the ‘original common law’ of the anglo-saxons which was that of the laws of nature/laws of nations remained such as no dual allegiance but as you can also see, the English were finally forced to reinstate the part of natural law wherein the children follow the condition of the father regardless of place of birth, jus snaguinis. England's population was dwindling and so was the size of its armies & treasury. The crown was hungry for power to expand its territories and rule. It needed every body it could lay claim to.
Just this past decade, England stripped every speck of the feudal definition of ‘natural born subject’ from its laws. Current British law states that children born to aliens on British soil are themselves aliens. It is very specific and they are back to the citizenship laws of their ancient Anglo-Saxon founders. The same founders that Justice James Wilson speaks of in the very 1st Commentaries on US Law in 1791 Vol I & II:
Western Europe initially had 2 systems of law: Common Law of Rome and the Common Law of the Saxon, prior to the conquest. US law is the renewed form of Saxon law.
You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.
The DRONES and their leaders don't want the general public knowing this history as it exposes their deceit. Now, who do you suppose the framers looked to to define ‘natural born citizen’? laws of nature as France their ally had adopted or did they want the new citizens to be perpetual subjects to the government?