Replies

No, it did not. Using “native-born or natural-born citizen” in a regulation does NOT mean the terms have separate definitions. It merely means both were in common use, as here:

“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”

Describe who would be a native-born citizen that would not qualify for natural-born citizen status. USCIS explicitly states:

“restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship

When would one be native-born but NOT natural-born?

Note, though, that the State Dept. specifically informs us... “In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

[The court] ... declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”

Natural born citizenship status is not held perpetuity. The Elg case was heard before Afroyim v. Rusk. In Afroyim, SoS Rusk issued Afroyim a CLN after he established citizenship in another country and voted in an election in that country. Afroyim was a naturalized U.S. Citizen who sued because he did not formally renounce his U.S. Citizenship. Rusk defended his actions by asserting Afroyim effectively renounced and since he was a naturalized U.S. citizen, he could be issued a CLN. Afroyim asserted and SCOTUS agree Afroyim's Constitutional rights where violated because it violates the Equal Protection Clause to treat naturalized citizens differently than natural born citizens. The Court did not rule a U.S. Citizen could not effectively renounce, only a naturalized citizen cannot be treated differently than a natural born citizen; except when considering eligibility for POTUS.

Elg's asserted (before Afroyim's case was heard) she was a natural born citizen and natural born citizens can never move out of the country and renounce without a formal application. SCOTUS opined the SoS could not issue her a CLN without formal renunciation because she was a natural born citizen and not a naturalized citizen.

Afroyim changed this to indicate any U.S. citizen, naturalized or natural born citizens, could effectively renounce and be issued a CLN by the SoS if the SoS could prove an effective renouncement had taken place by the U.S. citizen while living abroad and obtaining foreign nationality.