Whatever the Founding Fathers might have believed (and I’m sure you know that they were not of one mind on practically any subject) since the adoption of the 14th Amendment there has been no distinction in law or practice between a born citizen and a natural born citizen. In the modern world they are considered to be one and the same.
As far back as the 1898 landmark US v Wong Kim Ark decision, it was recognized that the 14th Amendment would impact natural born citizen status.
The government wrote in its brief for the Supreme Court: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 against the position of the government.
Not true. U.S. Secretaries of State have ruled otherwise.
In 1883, Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, in 1885, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Born in the U.S. but NOT even citizens let alone natural born citizens.
Seems U.S. Secretaries of State knew A LOT more about it than you. You're trying awfully hard to float a bogus theory.