[pokerone]

If Madison thought birth place alone was the sole criterion of citizenship why would the framers have gone to the trouble of mentioning natural born citizen in the Constitution and differentiated it from, “...citizens at the adoption of this constitution.”? Why would Chester A. Arthur have lied continuously about the circumstances of his birth?

I’ll research the cases you mention but it would seem to me that declaring the children of non-citizen immigrants native born citizens allows for dual allegiance or worse. Certainly the framers thought of that, worried as they were of foreign, especially an aristocratic one, influence on the newly minted country.

[jamese777]

If Madison thought birth place alone was the sole criterion of citizenship why would the framers have gone to the trouble of mentioning natural born citizen in the Constitution and differentiated it from, “...citizens at the adoption of this constitution.”? Why would Chester A. Arthur have lied continuously about the circumstances of his birth?

---

The Founders made provisions for changing their original thoughts and wishes for the structure of the American republic.
For example, the Founders didn’t believe in popular election of Senators, yet the Constitution was amended to allow for popular election of Senators.
In the same vein, the 14th Amendment updated the Founders’ original view of natural born citizenship. Since the ratification of the 14th amendment which begins with the words “ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED...” there have only been two types of citizens, (1) Citizens-at-birth and (2) Naturalized citizens. A citizen at birth has been ruled to be a native born and/or a natural born citizen in case after case ruled on by the US Supreme Court. Citizens at birth can become president or vice president and naturalized citizens cannot become president or vice president.
There is no law in the US Code and no US Supreme Court decision that has ever ruled otherwise.
Here’ a link to the law of the land:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html

[Technical Editor]

If Madison thought birth place alone was the sole criterion of citizenship why would the framers have gone to the trouble of mentioning natural born citizen in the Constitution and differentiated it from, “...citizens at the adoption of this constitution.”?

Because there was no "United States" when the men who were “...citizens at the adoption of this constitution” were born, so nobody in existence could have been "born in the United States."