Wrong, they are just citizens. The courts have NEVER said these are natural-born citizens. Your stuff about "inclusive" and "exclusive" language ignores that the court only applied the natural-born citizen characterization to ONE set of criteria. They had no problem doing this. If they believed it could be applied to another set of criteria, why didn't they do so?? And, you need to read and understand this passage from Minor:
The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Waite uses the construction of the term "all children" to reject the 14th amendment's use of "all persons" as being the only way for women to be citizens. He's saying there's nothing NEW in the 14th amendment to create citizenship for women because they already have it in the definition of natural-born citizens. That's why he says the plaintiff's whole argument proceeds on this idea, so that they would be forced to admit that Minor ... and women in general who are born in the country to citizen parents ... do NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens. They are already natural-born citizens, and as such, are EXCLUDED from the operation of the birth clause in the 14th amendment.
a weak and faulty reading of the decision. The reason the law does not distinguish Natural Born Citizen from Citizen at Birth is, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth.
There are only two classes of Citizen, in the United States:
Natural Born
Naturalized