You wave off Rogers v. Bellei and numerous other cases that have been cited to you. Your assertion is not supported by case law, and in fact, case law stands for the opposite of what you claim. Citizenship-at-birth to those born abroad is always naturalization.
Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress."
Scalia Concurring Opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
The INS handbooks and similar references are chock full of imprecise contentions. The imprecision is useful shorthand for operation of the INS. But it isn't the law, and you know it isn't the law, and yet you persist in spreading falsehood. That is despicable, on your part. But, I must say, you are at least consistently despicable.
I will only say that the US Code is not an INS handbook.
Re. MILLER v. ALBRIGHT, the petitioner never was a United States Citizen by birth as she failed to meet the requirements prescribed by statute. Therefore she was in essence demanding to be naturalized. This the Court rightly refused to do. Not on point. I will comment on other citations in due course.