For example, see the case of James McClure. He was born in the U.S. in 1785 and wasn't even considered a "citizen" (let alone a "natural born Citizen") until after his British citizen father naturalized a U.S. citizen.
Simply not true. The United States government sent a letter on McClure's behalf, declaring that he was a United States citizen. I've seen what they wrote. In that letter, they didn't say jack about his father's nationality, good or bad. Their basis for declaring that he was a US citizen was simply that McClure had been BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. Period.
It's been fun, but at this point it gets tedious. If others want to debunk the rest of your spew of fallacies, they're welcome to it. I have better things to do.
Because his FATHER naturalized a year AFTER James was born. The chronology is this:
1. Born in the United States on April 21, 1785 to a British national father. James is not even considered a "citizen" of the U.S.
2. James's father naturalized on February 20, 1786.
3. James McClure became as U.S. citizen...NOT because he was born in the U.S., but BECAUSE his father naturalized.
If a U.S. citizen women (of age), gives birth to a child in England (for example)...is that child born a U.S. citizen?
If a U.S. citizen women (of age), gives birth to a child in England (for example)...is that child born a U.S. citizen?
You've skimmed over all that led up to that, without regard to what was actually occurring. It was on the basis of documents submitted by South Carolina that demonstrated their citizenship laws extended to Mr. McClure, and by virtue of that he also acquired American citizenship. It required the efforts of A Supreme Court Justice and a Congressman from South Carolina to get James Monroe to write that letter. (After having been shown the proper paperwork.)
You further overlook the fact that Ambassador Armstrong was a Congressman in 1787, and very close in the circles of George Washington. He was no fool, and he would know as well as any man who was meant to have American citizenship because he was one of the members of Congress who voted on it. You also overlook the fact that he was supported in his actions by President James Madison. Had your theory been correct, Ambassador Armstrong would never have Proclaimed James McClure a non-citizen. If your theory had been correct, President James Madison, and Secretary of State James Monroe would have sent word to secure his immediate release.
You are simply failing to look at this issue objectively, preferring to skip over all the detail and get straight to the end without bothering to understand what actually happened.
While we're on the topic, perhaps you have seen this letter from James Monroe when *HE* was ambassador to France, and dealing with the same problem?
A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.
If all that is required is birth within the United States, Why does Monroe say that isn't enough in the circumstance of Mr Eldred?
Why does your theory have these holes in it?