I am not arguing that the phrase “natural born citizen” isn't in the Constitution - that would be as idiotic as insisting it defined a term that did not exist within it.
Natural born or naturalized - the Constitution doesn't mention any third category of citizen.
You should really read my reply again.
Or not. I am moving on...
Also, Wee do for Us, our Heires, and Successors, declare by these Presents, that all and every the Persons, beinge our Subjects, which shall goe and inhabitt within the said Collony and Plantation, and every of their Children and Posterity, which shall happen to be born within the Limitts thereof, shall have and enjoy all Liberties, and ffranchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abidinge and born within this our Kingdome of England, or any other our Dominions.
Notice how it says that every person being a subject which shall inhabit the colony and each of their children born with the limits shall enjoy all the liberties of free Denizens and natural subjects. This seems to be recognizing two different categories of persons at birth. The so-called "third category" of citizenship is created by the 14th amendment, where it recognizes persons born in the country, subject to the jurisdiction. IOW, it's now for people born there, not just those who are born of ourselves and our posterity.
>> “Natural born or naturalized - the Constitution doesn’t mention any third category of citizen.” <<
.
I know that you know that your statement is deceptive.
The 14th ammendment created the third classification, but failed to give it a name. The SCOTUS gave it a name in the WKA decision: “Native Born.”