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.’”
There are just two possibilities, a citizen by nature and a citizen by law. A citizen by nature does not need a law to establish citizenship; they are citizens naturally. But you cite a law to establish natural born status. Consider the child of a foreign diplomat born on American soil. Not only are they not a natural born citizen, they are not even citizens because of their father’s job. They are excluded by law. Can a natural born citizen by denied NBC status by law?
No wonder the congress and the courts don’t commit, the law of nature is not subject to the laws of Congress. Can we amend the constitution by editing the dictionary?