I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
In any event, it seems to miss my point, which was simply that the phrase “natural born citizen” was used absolutely synonymously and interchangeably with “natural born subject” in law by the State of Massachusetts.
In these statutes, it simply didn’t matter which one they used. For their purposes, both meant exactly the same thing.
In those days, they naturalized foreigners by an act of the legislature. Of course, they would eventually move to a more efficient system.
There were foreigners, and there were those who were natural born subjects/citizens, those who were born citizens.
And when the Legislature made foreigners citizens like those who were natively Massachusetts/US citizens, they said, “We’re going to give these folks all the privileges of natural born subjects.”
Or, “We’re going to give these folks all the privileges of natural born citizens.”
First they would use one term, then the other. Except for the slight implication of subservience to a King implied by the word “subject,” there was no absolutely difference between natural born citizen and natural born subject.
Of course, “natural born subject” would eventually give way completely to the use of the term “natural born citizen.”
Except... it didn’t even do that 100%.
There is at least one State Constitution (I forget which one, and there may be more than one of them) that still uses the old term “natural born subject.”
Anyway, that was the point.
You can even argue that the rule they adopted no longer adequately meets the purpose they adopted it for.
You can say that their purpose was to protect the United States from any and all foreign influence. For that reason, they said the President had to be a natural born citizen.
And they thought that rule would protect us from foreign influence, and for a long time, it did.
But now anybody can travel anywhere in the world within hours.
So (you could argue) if we want to fulfill the purpose they adopted the rule for, we ought to update the rule by requiring that people be not only born US citizens in order to be eligible to be President, we ought to require that they be both born on US soil and have US citizen parents at the time of their birth.
You can make that argument.
It’s not a superbly strong argument, given the fact that the first Congress immediately clarified that those who were born overseas to US citizens and got their entire education in a place like France were also eligible to be elected President.
And it’s not a superbly strong argument, given the fact that the Framers of the Constitution specifically provided that one only had to live 14 years in the United States, total, before becoming President.
So even in the Framers’ day it was perfectly possible for someone to be born a natural born US citizen (by whatever measure you want to use), spend the next 21 years and their entire formative years in some place like France, sail to the United States, enter politics, and be elected President at age 35.
That was perfectly possible.
And they MEANT for it to be that way.
So while they WERE concerned, to some degree, about “foreign influence” (mostly about adult royalty swooping over here and buying up the Presidency), they don’t seem to have been NEARLY as concerned about it as you make them out to be.
For all those reasons, that argument is not a superbly strong one. But really, it’s the best argument you could make.
It wasn't whether one term would eventually give way to the other, so I'll file that under 'if you can't refute the logic, change the question'.
For you edification, it's the implication that you continue to purvey that children of aliens born on American soil TODAY are Constitutionally *natural born citizens*.
You do so by basing your entire argument on the assumption that the exception of the Naturalization Acts are still in operation today as they were then.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
That you can no more base a viable, rational argument on a fallacy any more than you can base a viable, legal argument on a violation of the Law.
Fruit of the Poisoned Tree, and all that.