I would be astonished to think one of our Founding Fathers would agree that post-Constitutional adoption, a son born to a British Subject father would be considered "natural born" and eligible to become the President. Along that line, did you know that for a time a female American citizen upon marrying a foreign national lost her citizenship as a result? Mull that one over for a while. And while this is no longer the case it puts an interesting twist when considering Original Intent.
The issue of citizenship, let alone Presidential qualifications, has never been as simple as "there are only two types" after the Republic was formed.
Your post is in reply to post #1 - and the author is discussing Article II of the Constitution.
The Constitution currently envisions only TWO ways of becoming a U.S. citizen - either one is naturalized or one is natural born.
Why do you think the term “naturalized” is used? What are they naturalizing? One is either natural, meaning the natural act of being born itself is sufficient to convey citizenship; or one is naturalized via a legal process.
Your claim was that this view of the law rendered verbiage of the Constitution superfluous - I pointed out to you that such a position is far from the truth. A view that citizens at birth are natural born citizens doesn't render Article II qualifications meaningless - it clearly disqualifies ONE type of citizen.
What type of citizen is that?
Naturalized.