It seems to me that the Framers would have been very familiar with the term natural born subject under the common law. Because the U.S. is not a monarchy, there are no U.S. “subjects”, but rather citizens. Thus, natural born citizen probably means the same thing as under the common law - a child born within the territory of the United States, regardless of the nationality of the parents, with limited exceptions.
In the Wang Kim Ark vs. U.S., the Supreme Court termed Wang's citizenship as 'native born citizen' and not natural born citizen. You are the confusing specifics of the case with holding or dictum.
And this is why we need the Supreme Court to handle this. The law is mostly too arcane and esoteric for the average citizen to easily grasp, although the effects of the law impact us in ways that are real and solid.
It's no wonder that so many people despise lawyers and courts. They rightly see these entities as surreptitiously subverting their natural rights through trickery of words, and I believe that is so.
“In the Wang Kim Ark vs. U.S., the Supreme Court termed Wang’s citizenship as ‘native born citizen’ and not natural born citizen. You are the confusing specifics of the case with holding or dictum.”
Did the case in question explicitly state that it chose the word “native” instead of “natural” for specific reasons? Or can you point to other cases that define “native” and “natural” differently in the same manner? I doubt it.
They mean the same thing. Just ask St. George Tucker.