[philman_36]

There is also nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that would differentiate a U.S. citizen at birth and one who was a natural born citizen.
On the contrary. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 does just that..."establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
Why empower Congress in such a manner if there was no need to differentiate the two as you imply?

[allmendream]

That is ONE category of U.S. citizenship covered by the U.S. Constitution.

Naturalized citizens. Congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization so that there was only ONE standard for a foreign national to become a U.S. citizen.

There is also mention of one other type of citizen that one could currently be - that being “natural born”.

Thus under the clear language of the U.S. Constitution - one is currently either a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Nothing in Article 1, Section 8, clause 4 establishes a category of citizenship from birth that is not “natural born” thus differentiating a U.S. citizen at birth from a “natural born” citizen.

A Uniform rule of naturalization differentiates those that are natural born citizens from those that must be naturalized. It does nothing towards establishing “native born” as a category of U.S. citizenship under the Constitution.

Must have gotten that one from penumbras and emanations.

Because if we go by what the U.S. Constitution actually says - it mentions “natural born citizens” and “naturalization”.