Oh, right, my delusions that the "grandfather clause" was added for the benefit of foreign-born patriots (e.g., Hamilton, Wilson) and not for the likes of George Washington -- a "delusion" that seems to be shared by all the Constitutional historians speaking on the topic.
Of course you have no interest when I beat your argument senseless and point out there is NO ONE at the time of the Constitution or beyond who says that the clause was added because otherwise Washington, et al., would not be eligible. You duck and run because you have to.
(that Washington was Twice born with allegiance to a government)
When you have to resort to straw man arguments, it's a sign you're position grows ever more desperate.
I said nothing about "twice born." James Madison suffices as an authority to explain this to you:
" What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain."
So, as I've pointed out to you before, there was understood to be a primary, local allegiance to the American political community and a secondary allegiance to the Crown. The latter was dissolved; the former remained in continuity. The allegiance owing to the Crown was "transferred" to the local society.
So it's a transfer of allegiance; not a re-birth.
You need to learn what a fallacy is, then learn about the various common varieties, of which the above is one of them.
You really need to go find some children to argue with. Perhaps they wouldn't notice your malfunctioning logic and reliance on fallacy arguments.