The question you ask is one of numerous scenarios. The Framers of the US Constitution would have been hard pressed to account for every single little nuance. So, they set a minimum standard that could reasonably help ensure loyalty.
Your “Person A” scenario is there because, in a nutshell, they didn’t want King George III and his wife, or another couple like him, coming over to the U.S., having a baby on U.S. soil, and then running that child for President later on just so King George, or another like him, could then reclaim the Americas.
Now, on to the “Person B” scenario:
The minimum age for a President is 35. As I have recently come to understand it, because of the minimum age set at 35, the Framers went with the 14 year residency requirement as an absolute minimum to ensure that a President had at least reached the age of accountability (21), free from parental control in choice of locations, when he had decided to stay in the United States.
Now, if you read carefully the only known quote on the Natural Born clause from one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, Charles Pinckney, you’ll see that not only does he talk about loyalty (attachment) to the United States, he also talks about the process of an Electoral College:
“They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible...”
Now, if you think about it, he’s talking about a system of checks and balances. Even though he’s using the Electoral College, combined with a mistrust of Congressmen, as a springboard for why he and the other Framers put in the requirement’s for the President, he is also tacitly admitting that, barring a failure of those Presidential requirements in ensuring loyalty to the U.S., Congress has a hand, via their electoral college votes, in also ensuring the “attachment” of the President to the country should those Presidential Requirements be ineffective in preventing an Anti-American from obtaining the Popular Vote.
Needless to say, Our system of Checks and Balances concerning the loyalty of the President has failed us due to the massive number of Progressives sitting in Congress, today.
Anyway, that’s it in a nutshell. I’m sure others will attempt to eviscerate my understanding, but I’ve got a couple of Aces up my sleeves from some books in my library, of which, the texts aren’t available online... So, be warned.
Cheers!