A misconception that many on this subject adhere is using the term “natural born” and “native born” as if they were synonymous....they are not.
We can’t agree with this because to my way of thinking, because the Constitution does not define the term. and because both the statutes and the case law have left the meaning ambiguous, it must be left to the public to decide. In Iowa they get a chance to give a yea or nye.
As regards presidential eligibility, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the terms "natural" and "native" interchangeably:
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Luria v. U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913)Naturalized citizens are excluded from the presidency. Native born citizens are citizens by birth who need no naturalization, and thus are "natural born citizens" under the common law and the 14th Amendment. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898) ("Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.")