Oh, for crying out loud. Clinton himself would be proud of your dissembling. Why can't you admit you made a mistake?
You said that "natural born citizen" meant "citizen at birth". It doesn't, because the former is a subset of the latter. A person can be a "citizen at birth", but still not a "natural born citizen".
It is correct to say that a "natural borne citizen" is a also a citizen at birth, but it is not correct to say that a "citizen at birth" is also a natural born citizen.
“Clinton himself would be proud of your dissembling”
Huh? I’m not talkingn about the meaning of “is.” I’m not even using very fine distinctions. I’d say I was being a whole lot simpler and more apparent (if laconic) than the guy who brought up the arcane legal textbook.
“Why can’t you admit you made a mistake?”
For the best of reasons: because I didn’t.
“You said that ‘natural born citizen’ meant ‘citizen at birth’”
Uh-huh.
“It doesn’t, because the former is a subset of the latter.”
If that were true, there would be a category of citizen known as “native born but not natural born.” Since there isn’t, and never has been in the history of humankind, perhaps that’s a clue that something’s off.
“A person can be a ‘citizen at birth’, but still not a ‘natural born citizen’”
Wrong.
“You said that ‘natural born citizen’ meant ‘citizen at birth’. It doesn’t, because the former is a subset of the latter.”
Your set theory is almost as bad as your law. Any set is a subset of itself.
If you want to show that the two sets are not equal, just show one case where a U.S. court held some person is both in one of the sets and not in the other. If you think this class of citizens from birth that are not natal-born citizens is non-empty, show one clear member.