There’s nothing to reconcile. They didn’t try to make a rule assuring “no possible taint or question of divided loyalty”. How could they? It’s not possible.
~~~
I don’t get that reasoning.
From its most basic and logical premise,
would you not agree it’s certainly possible
to most fundamentally determine allegiance to
country from the standpoint of country of
origin and citizenship of one’s parents?
Let me attempt to simplify your reasoning
for my understanding.
My grandparents came here from Poland, where
they were born, and became proud naturalized
citizens of the US.
So, my Mother was born to naturalized citizens
of the United States.
Let’s say hypothetically my grandparents were
merely been visiting here on a visitor’s or student
visas when my Mother decided to arrive into the
world, and they separated shortly after her birth,
with my Grandfather returning to Poland and my
Grandmother choosing to stay here on her visa
to build a life here.. perhaps illegally at first,
and then eventually becoming a legal naturalized
citizen of the US.
And let’s say that, even though her Father never
contributed any financial or other support for her,
my Mother initiated and kept up communications with
her Father and extended family in Poland, and visited
there regularly.
Would the Founder’s and the Constitution assert that
my Mother would be eligible, and completely without
any taint of foreign allegiance or loyalty to another
country, if she eventually successfully ran for and
became VP of the US when she was 35?
No, it isn't possible to guarantee allegiance that way. History is filled with "natural born" citizens that betrayed their country, and immigrants that are fiercely loyal to their adopted one. It's a state of mind. There can be no rule requiring a particular state of mind.
There can be a reasonable rule that someone must have been born here in order to be President. It's not an attempt to guarantee an outcome which is not possible to guarantee. It's a reasonable rule. It disallows immigrants from the office.
Your objection is that the simple requirement of being born here doesn't guarantee anything. No, it doesn't. But neither does any other rule you could possibly imagine.
Although we might think the founders should have been stricter, it really doesn't matter. The question at hand isn't what the best rule would be, the question is what the actual rule is. And the term "natural born citizen" meant to the founders, someone born in the country and therefore a citizen by birth.
The Constitution doesn't say "and completely without any taint of foreign allegiance or loyalty to another country". It only requires that she be a "natural born citizen". And by US law and long-standing principles of both English and US Common Law, since she was born here, she qualifies.