[RegulatorCountry]

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.” House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Source: federalistblog.us

[Mr. Blonde]

From what I can tell by quick perusal of the speech that is taken from, found here, the subject is a naturalized citizen, and the issue being that a naturalized citizen does not become naturalized solely by residing in the US. That would not rule out citizenship by birth.

Wikipedia lists two Framers quotes, I know it isn't the most accurate or unbiased, but I did go and check the links and at the very least they do both appear in a Yale law review article on the subject. This link leads to a page that links to a PDF of the article if you are interested.

John Jay said, "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise . . . to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

In a sketch for the government Alexander Hamilton wrote out, "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Jay's letter doesn't define beyond not allowing the foreign born as president. Seemingly this could be in response to some calls to bring a foreign prince in to become the King of the US. Hamilton's makes more clear that the difference is between naturalized and citizens by birth. I would say Hamilton gets more to the intent of the phrase as it appears in the Constitution. To me, it also comes across as the plain meaning of what the Constitution says. It still makes for a higher bar than what is required of Representatives and Senators.

Overall there seems to be a lack of information about what the Framers intended the phrase to mean. It passed without comment at the convention. Again, the practical issue is how will the SC rule on this issue. I think they will side with Hamilton as they so often do.