Once again, you're parsing differences that don't exist.
For whatever reason. You claim that you'd like for Ted Cruz to become President. So why do you keep inventing barriers that aren't there?
James Bayard said - and this was AFTER the change in which "natural born" was dropped from the wording in the 1795 Naturalization Act - Bayard said that PERSONS BORN IN CRUZ'S SITUATION WERE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
And Chief Justice Marshall agreed.
"Citizen at birth" and "citizen by birth" are the same thing.
Whether I like or dislike Cruz is immaterial. You are injecting diversionary topics.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(G) “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”
Fact: “citizen at birth” is by naturalization statute
Fact: Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.
Fact: “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
Fact: If a “citizen at birth” by naturalization statute is (as you contend) a “natural born citizen” what would be the point of Article II’s distinction of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”?
Fact: Contending that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” do not have distinct meanings creates a pointless redundancy in the Constitution, it is an impermissible construction.