It’s actually not a complicated question at all. It’s painfully simple. If you were a Founder, would you (1) enshrine in the Constitution the right of non-citizen enemies of the nation to father future presidents, or (2) feel the nation better served by limiting the highest office of the land to the offspring of citizen parents?
If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must therefore pay a proper attention to this principle. ...then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith's, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared, that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us they violated their allegiance and opposed our laws; so then there can be only a few characters, such as were minors at the revolution, and who have never violated their allegiance by a foreign connection, who can be affected by the decision of the present question.
I don't know what I would I have done as a Founder; I can but admire Mr. Madison who choses the right over the expedient.