Yes; no. At least, at the moment I can't think of a third.
Sorry for what may appear to be annoying questions, but IMHO, a great deal of confusion comes from someone saying one term thinking it means one thing and the person they said it to thinks it means something totally different.
No problem, and I agree. There's often quite a bit of mindreading in these topics, and the less of it the better.
Great!
[sorry about the delay in the reply, BTW]
So we have 2 types. Natural born and naturalized.
Naturalized is pretty simple. Since the uniform rule of naturalization is in the federal ballpark, would it be fair to say it would be defined as a citizen created by an action of the federal government? Or would you assign it another definition?
And since the natural-born definition is the one in contention, what would you define it as, and why?