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?
Stipulated: “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.”
Therefore Cruz, born abroad, is by law a citizen. The law does not say “natural born citizen” - even though you believe the terms are synonymous they are not as has been shown.
Fact: “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.The fact that persons covered by Art. II grandfather clause are dead is immaterial to the definition of words.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.
Furthermore the distinction was in force for living persons for decades:
“It specifically includes the children of non-citizen residents who are here legally.”
The children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of the parents. Your scenario does not exist. Even Gray in Ark declared your scenario’s class “citizen”
“Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
This is true today as it was at the adoption.