What they said was that the “only difference” between a native born and naturalized citizen is that the natural born can be President.
That means native born and natural born are, to the court, interchangeable.
This is similar but more explicit than Perkins v Elg, where they wrote, “But the Secretary of State...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...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.”
The only reason to justify the switch from native born to natural born is that the court considered them interchangeable. Otherwise, they would rebuke the Sec of State by saying he denied her native citizenship, which she retained, or perhaps saying he denied her native born status, when she was not just native born, but natural born.
Meanwhile, they had earlier cited with approval a ruling that said “”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States...”
Again, if they saw a difference between native born and natural born, they would have used the latter in describing Steinkauler before saying he could be President.
You may disagree if you wish, but the interpretation I give it is not outlandish or bizarre. A court is not going to try to remove the President (which they do not have the authority to do anyways) based on my reading being impossible, and that yours the only reading a person of good will can give.
IMHO. I can’t stop someone from giving money to birther cases, but I can warn them it won’t do any good and that the money would be better spent getting conservatives into office. And the perfect record of losing in court by birthers tends to support my argument...
Only if you conclude from that that being a citizen and being the President are also interchangeable.
Kawakita v. United States
No. 570
Argued April 2-3, 1952
Decided June 2, 1952
[From the facts of the case]
"At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport,"
[ Do Natural Born Citizens take oath of allegiances to the United States? Do natural born citiznes have foreign citizen parents? ]
-snip-
"MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was
Page 343 U. S. 720
convicted of treason after a jury trial, see 96 F.Supp. 824, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F.2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 932."
-snip-
[Kawakita a duel citizen at birth and "US native born" with split allegiances between two countries. Are native born citizens the same as natural born citizens? ...No ]
-snip-
"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97."
- end snip -
The Supreme Court concluded that Kawakita was born in the US to foreign parents who held citizenships of the United States and Japan. We also see here that the Supreme Court concluded he was a 14th Amendment citizen. Before the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Kawakita would have been held by the United States as a foreigner, and it would have been an absurdity to declare Kawakita a natural born citizen by anyone and still is. It is very clear that the Supreme Court differentiates between native born and natural born citizens as this 1952 Supreme Court opinion clearly demonstrates. The Supreme Court may describe natural born citizen as natives, but they never go the other way around by saying that ONLY native born are natural born citizens as this court opinion clearly demonstrates...again. This has been explained to you many times.