Because by including those who DO need naturalized, those who DON'T are excluded by default.
'That which is not included is therefore excluded'...remember?
----
Those Congress say don't need to be naturalized would be considered natural born citizens.
Yet the power is to make a uniform Rule for people TO be naturalized, not to 'identify those who don't.'
Oh really? I don't think that's correct. Congress has played around with determining those who don't quite a bit, from the very beginning in fact. In 1790 Naturalization Act said that a person born oveseas of a citizen father was a citizen, provided the father had at one time resided in the U.S. A couple of years later they changed it. Later still they extended it to mothers who were U.S. citizens. And in and around all that, Congress played with the length of time the citizen parent had to have lived in the U.S. prior to the brith and also when that period had to have occurred. But with all those changes the one common thread was that those Congress did not identify as natural born citizens had to be naturalized. And that ability has never been struck down by the courts.
Yet the power is to make a uniform Rule for people TO be naturalized, not to 'identify those who don't.'
Again, how do you identify one without first identifying the other?