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.
In some circumstances, that's true. In others, it isn't.
Fact: Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.
That's correct.
Fact: “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
That's correct.
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”?
"Citizen" is dead. It died when the very last of those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution died, which would've been around 100 years later, or around 1888.
Can we agree on that?
It now requires that a person be a natural born citizen, and has for your entire lifetime and mine.
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.
Nobody contends that.
In 2013, a person must be a natural born citizen to be legally elected President. Do we agree on that?
Historically and legally, there are two ways in which a person can be a natural born citizen: Jus soli and jus sanguinis.
Generally speaking, the jus soli route includes persons born on US soil of parents who are not foreign ambassadors, foreign royalty, or members of invading armies.
It specifically includes the children of non-citizen residents who are here legally.
It arguably MIGHT not include the children of non-citizens who are only here temporarily, NOT as residents.
And I think there's a good case that it should not include the children of illegal aliens.
That's jus soli.
Jus sanguinis includes the children born, wherever they may be born, of at least one US citizen parent who meets whatever other qualifications Congress sets.
The Founders believed, and therefore I believe, that Congress has the power to say who among those born abroad is and is not a natural born American citizen.
I do not believe they have any such broad discretion when it comes to those born in the United States, although I think they could forbid children of illegal aliens, and possibly birth tourism as well.
Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen, and Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Is all of that clear?
The only point in the distinction is in the clause that you leave out: "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." The reason for that exception is that, by the broadest definition, the oldest natural born citizen of the US was eleven years old in 1787.