>> “Those are interchangeable, and have been for over 200 years.” <<
.
Bullshit.
The WKA decision went to great pains to state what a NB citizen was, and then to define a “native citizen.”
A native citizen has citizenship specifically because of the location of their birth, while a natural born citizen is a citizen regardless of the country in which they may have been born, by virtue of the US citizenship of their parents. That is why it is “natural.”
Its a shame that you are too arrogant to read the learned writers of the era, they made it clear.
“...Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
““As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Both from James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
““Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . .”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
“The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“By the common law of England, which is in force in this country, and which may be assumed as also the law of all the European states, persons within the jurisdiction of the government, or limits of the territory, are either natives, or aliens. Natives are those born within the national jurisdiction; aliens are born without that jurisdiction.”
John Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law, 1865
““By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. “
Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866)
In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled “”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.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
The “only difference” between the native born and naturalized is that only the natural born citizen can become President - a clear use of NBC and native born citizen as interchangeable.