Minor v Happersett suggests that the Constitution does not define natural born, and that while there may be doubts on whether children born in the US to non citizens are natural born or not, the court would not rule on that.
So they did not confirm or deny natural born status to children born in the US to non-citizens, as that was not the point of the case. All the result of that case does is keep the argument going, but it is not anything final.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Wrong, the courts sent the children of coolies back to china.
Okay, I’ll give you that. But, smell-test-wise, simple logic dictates that the framers intended that no one with potentially divided loyalties (like, mayhap, having a declared father as a British subject) should be able to hold the highest office in the land. Unfortunately for the moment at least, according to Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, the Court is avoiding the question.
FJ