Directly under that, you assert that the court meant "there is no difference."
The logical connection between the two doesn't follow, to most readers.
But you are right, you aren't me.
“The court said “The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President.” That statement directly says there is a difference.”
It helps when one reads BOTH sentences, not just one.
”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, S: 1.”
OK, what does “the only difference” refer to? It refers to what precedes it: the only difference between a native born and a naturalized person is...what? That the natural born citizen can become President.
And this is well established - the only difference between the rights and abilities of a naturalized citizen and one born a citizen is that the latter can run for President. In all other ways, a naturalized citizen is equal.