The reason I asked whether you and the other guy are both citizens at birth under the statute is as a counter to the claim that they can't be "the same thing". Two things that are different in some respects may nevertheless be treats as "the same" under U.S. law in others. So, the mere fact that you and the guy who can lose his citizenship for leaving the country are "different" doesn't itself preclude the conclusion that you are both "the same" in terms of being a citizen at birth.
The question of whether a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen is a different question. I'm just making the point that being "different" in some respects under the law doesn't preclude being treated the same under others. And in this case, both you and the person who can lose their citizenship by leaving the U.S. are both, legally, citizens at birth under the statute. Maybe the statute shouldn't be written that way, but it is.
that they very clearly are under the statute. That's inarguable. You can argue that isn't the same as being a "natural born citizen", but that's a different argument. The point is, despite saying "they aren't the same thing", it is
It is my contention that the "natural born citizen" requirement for a US president is intended to invoke the most stringent criteria for being a citizen.
Do you disagree?
The question of whether a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen is a different question. I'm just making the point that being "different" in some respects under the law doesn't preclude being treated the same under others.
"Natural citizen" only comes into play in a single aspect of law of which I am aware. For all the rest, any old citizenship is just as good.
that they very clearly are under the statute. That's inarguable. You can argue that isn't the same as being a "natural born citizen", but that's a different argument.
That is in fact the argument I have been making. To reiterate, I argue that statute citizenship is not the same as natural citizenship, and I have just demonstrated to you a very important point at which they diverge.
Rogers vs. Bellei Makes these differences clear.
I also point out the argument that "they are the same" does not accomplish the purpose the founders tell us they intended when they created the "natural born citizen" clause.