The Constitution beat me to it.
But the SCOTUS cases Elg, Venus, and Wang Kim Ark pop your little deceit quite adequately.
No, actually, they don't. And I've read them both.
You want to deceive by claiming only two forms of citizenship exist according to wording int ht e Constitution, and ignore the SCOTUS cases which address at least three ways a person can be defined as a citizen (one of which is the highest stricture, natural born citizen).
We must be thinking of different Ark and Elg cases. Can you quote the parts you're referring to?
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens (that is one or the other, for those in Rio Linda), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
The issue is divided loaylties and how to avoid them for the highest office. We realize you want anchor babies to eligible, and if your obamessiah gets away with this usurpation that may happen. But ...
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama, admits on his own website that he held British citizenship at birth due to his Father being a British subject who was in no way an American. Thus Barry is precisely whom Bingham was implying is not a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility.