Mr Hillhouse of Connecticut believing the amendment did not go far enough and proposed the following hypothetical case;,
"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046
A good find, indeed. Hillhouse was a contemporary of Zephaniah Swift, who likewise wrote that same year:
"It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection . . .The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens." Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)
You may have read Michael Ramsey's paper on "The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born.'" Ramsey cites to Swift to show how the meaning of "natural born" conveyed the jus soli meaning from earliest post-Constitutional days:
Swift's treatise on Connecticut law, mentioned above, even more clearly adopts English law. Swift directly ties the status of "subject" to birth in sovereign territory, describing "natural born subjects" as those "born within the state" and later specifically saying that the children of aliens "born in this state" are natural born subjects.86 Swift also included an explanation of the rule, based on the idea of allegiance to territorial sovereign at birth in return for protection, that closely tracks Blackstone.87 Like Madison's assessment, Swift's description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.
Ramsey also notes the interchangeability of "subject" and "citizen" as used in the post-Revolutionary period, citing, inter alia, to the Massachusetts naturalization acts:
Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular names individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) "natural born subjects" of the state82 and (in others) "natural born citizens."83 As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts refer to "natural born subjects" during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution."
So adoption of the term "citizen" was somewhat gradual. It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift. It was a term used by Montesquieu and other illustrious political writers. Attribution solely to Vattel is result-driven poppycock.
The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens." Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795) There's that word "Subject" again. Seems like someone wasn't up to speed.
Like Madison's assessment,
Which he tossed on the ash heap in the case of James McClure.
Swift's description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.
We have no doubts as to where he got the idea, the question is whether it was an aspect of English law that the founders intended to keep, or to jettison because of it's incompatibility with the natural law philosophy under which they asserted a right to independence.
And once again, Swift was neither a Constitutional convention delegate, or a member of a ratifying legislature. His opinion is hearsay.
So adoption of the term "citizen" was somewhat gradual.
As in those not in the know taking awhile to catch up to what the founders had done.
It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift.
In the scope of a Nation's history, it was an instant. The first official document of the Independent States uses the word "Citizen." The word "Subject" (in a form analogous to citizenship) is not used.
Jefferson deliberately chose to use the word "Citizen."
It was an explicit rejection of the English law based relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
And yes, it was a paradigm shift. The creation of the nation was a paradigm shift. The only other government in the world that was similar was Republique des Suisses.
As late as 1798 the Massachusetts legislature was still using both terms.
"RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES."
"...That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person shall be eligible as President or Vice President of ye United States nor shall any person be a Senator or Representative in ye Congress of ye United States except a natural born Citizen ; or unless he shall have been a Resident in the United States at ye time of ye declaration of Independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in, its service from that period to ye time of his election."
A similar proposal for senators was made during the Constitutional Convention but voted down after James Wilson objected. He argued that he was helping to draft the constitution but under the same document he would be prohibited from serving in its government (he was born in Scotland). I suspect that was the main reason for the grandfather clause.