Osborn v. Bank Of The U.S. dealt specifically with whether the right to sue was the same for naturalized citizens as native citizens. There are numerous cites from this that negate your attempt to specifically enumerate and therefore restrict allowable, Constitutional types of citizen to language used in Legislative Acts. You conflate enumerated powers of the Legislative, in determining a uniform law of naturalization, and the attendant forms of citizenship governed by Legislative Acts, with Constitutional citizenship that is not governed by Legislative Acts.
A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.
So, the Constitution makes the distinction. What distinction does the Constitution make, regarding citizenship and eligibility for the office of President?
You know the answer to this, and false equivalence does not evade the specific language. It's been made clear to you, that the native, indigenous and natural born share a trait, that being born of the soil, jus soli.
And yet, there is the specific term of art utilized, under the Constitution, not due to an act of legislation, to make a finer point of distinction, for those who would be President, as the Constitution prescribes. That term of art is natural born citizen. Yes, natural born citizens are indigenous, and are natives. A square is a rectangle, too, but a rectangle is not always a square. This is the logical fallacy to which you've either fallen prey, or have cynically chosen to espouse, in order to confuse the issue.
I've seen enough of your efforts here, to come down squarely on the side of your having cynically chosen to espouse fallacious interpretations in order to confuse the issue.
Tell me, already. When is a native citizen not a natural born citizen?