I have tried to demonstrate that English speakers at the time of the drafting of the Constitution associated natural-born with lineage and distinctively native-born with place.
ML/NJ
Many of the Framers spoke French.
Had I offered my reasoning for posting what I did the explanation would have added to that “wall of text”. No one wants to see it much less read it or take the time to consider what was written. Too many “drive-by” readers looking for bumper sticker responses.
“But he was a Frenchman and so cannot be considered as the arbiter of what some English language phrase meant to English speaking persons.” Agreed. Vattel, in his Law of Nations, offers concepts and they are at best his opinions on the matters addressed in his work. However once a concept is understood, regardless of the language used or the ethnicity of the writer of origin, it is the acceptance of the value(s) within the concept, the establishment of the concept, augmented by other factors or not, in a manner most appropriate for the intended result and that the language expressing the concept be understood by all. Your effort to offer definitions found in an English dictionary is laudable in this regard. Toward the issue at hand, the founders failed to provide legal definitions for the words and phrases used for whatever reason. Despite this I understand what they intended and will apply that understanding when required to do so. Vattel’s opinions having been considered. The post was intended to provoke thought on the matter of what they intended by presenting thoughts for a reader to consider what would be the most effective limitations to apply to lessen the chance of foreign influence in the thinking of the occupier of the highest office in this nation. As is often said, and I repeat here, “I have no dog in this hunt”.