There is a distinction up front in the Constitution as to ‘natural born citizen’ citizen for POTUSA and ‘citizen’ for Congresspersons. My brother, killed in the battle for Okinawa, and I, served in WWII on Leyte, were born as ‘citizens’ of the US in the US. Parents, were not citizens of the US. I never through years of reviewing my status had any reason to believe that I or my brother were “natural born’ citizens, instead just plain ordinary citizens. The code words you address notes specifically just plain ‘citizens’. There is a distinction contrary to your claim.
If you or anyone else can convince a judge, a jury or a majority in Congress of that distinction, more power to you.
In 1884 the Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that a Citizen of the United States At Birth is a natural born citizen and no subsequent ruling or law passed by Congress has changed that.
Here only two types of citizen are recognized.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”