“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.”
I don’t read here that there are ONLY two. He is comparing two of them, then later refers to the third. Which is still a native born citizen with additional requirements.
Yes, he’s comparing those two. No, he doesn’t say there are only two kinds of citizen. The 14th Amendment already does that.
He doesn’t “refer” to the third at all. He uses “natural born” INSTEAD OF “native born” in his explanation of what the difference between “native born” and “naturalized” is.
Read my post again, please. Carefully. Slowly.
This is the text I analyzed:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
The writer says “The only difference drawn ...” and can mean nothing other than the difference between “the native born and of the naturalized person.”
Thus, the second and final sentence HAS to be referring to “the native born and of the naturalized person,”
too.