Sure, when talking citizenship, you can turn a “robin” into a “eagle.” Happens every day when a citizen of (fill in the blank) naturalizes into a citizen of (fill in the blank). Germans become Australians, Canadians become Americans, VietNamese become French and so on.
This analogy went to rebut the argument that there was no “natural” citizenship, ONLY citizenship by operation of law. Wrong.
I’m certainly not suggesting, as your discussion seems to indicate, that someone born in America is not an American citizen. They are. The question is whether they are a “natural born citizen” and, on that point, I would say it depends on the citizenship they received by descent (from their parents).
I have posted many times that birthplace determines citizenship (as you cite) because the law says so. That is precisely why birthplace might not be relevant to whether one is a “natural born” citizen-—because that status seems to be one that is attained *apart from* the operation of law.
So you argument that being born in America makes one an American AT birth, while true, in no way refutes the argument that being born in America does not make one an American BY birth.
And, again, there is *no difference* between the citizenship attained AT birth and the citizenship attained BY birth, except the former is not eligible to serve as president and the latter is.
A concept unsupported by law or any section of the Constitution I'm aware of. Nor by a considerable body of foreign precedent.
So you argument that being born in America makes one an American AT birth, while true, in no way refutes the argument that being born in America does not make one an American BY birth.
I'm suggesting that it does. We recognize two types of citizenship; citizenship at birth and naturalized. If citizenship at birth and natural born citizen are not synonymous then you'll have to point out where that is detailed.