I don’t buy that you don’t know what you would do as a Founder. My question is extremely simple and straightforward. Either you would or you wouldn’t want foreign enemies to have the right in perpetuity to sire the POTUS. The degree to which you are dancing away from this simple question is just amazing. If you want foreign enemies to have this right, say so. If you think it would be better for the Republic to restrict the highest office of the land to the sons and daughters of American citizens, say that. What on earth is so hard about this question?????
That you are trying to say it is simple shows you don’t understand a lot. If James Madison argued this with others on the floor of Congress, it shows it was not simple then, and it still isn’t.
A superficial look at this would say “Sure, we don’t ever want anyone we don’t like (for any reason) to father the president.” Should a criminal have the right to sire the POTUS? Should a convicted spy have the right? Would an immigrant father be more likely to inculcate anti American feelings, or would a refugee from an undemocratic regime be more likely to value the freedom he found in America? Marco Rubio was born to Cuban parents, and Cuba is an enemy. Do you think he should be kept from running for president?
What about the idea that we don’t judge a person by his parents, but by his own actions?
Following these threads and research/reading have shown that eminent statesmen, legislators and historians of the day were ready to accept those who were children of the enemy. (see INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR’S SNUG HARBOR, 28 U. S. 99 (1830))