What he's quoting, is a sort of end-around/exception to the residency requirements for the offspring's own citizenship as outlined under previous portions of 8 U.S.C. 1801(g), in instances a foreign born, alien father himself becomes naturalized, and living within the United States as naturalized citizen, which influence then as "an American" albeit naturalized, is thought to assist towards providing additional support for the already established exception for strictly by birth jur soli (of the soil/of the land) consideration be absolutely necessary --- in regards to what it means to be a citizen of the United States.
This came to be eventually included for reason it was recognized that being raised up into adulthood while within U.S. culture & influence (rather than foreign) -- AND the father having given up that the father's own foreign identity, willingly, such father when married to a U.S. citizen mother and residing within the United States would thus likely assist in passing on/imprinting upon a youth civic spirit "of the land" of the United States.
WhiskeyX has been presenting this portion of the code while at the same time holding the ill-considered view the phrase "citizen by statute" means the same thing everywhere that phrase can be found within code of law, and Supreme Court non-binding dicta.
In those places wherein that phrase is found and that equate to act of 'naturalization' to have occurred, it was often in regards to those who were thus 'naturalized' at some time after their birth by way of statute which was made retroactive upon adoption of that law, and would have applied to themselves retroactively to the time of their birth. That is a different than being born a citizen, more simply put, including in the exception to jur soli consideration necessarily need be in all circumstances of birth.
It's slippery stuff to nail it all down.
I'll assume you know that already, along with pretty much everything else I just mentioned, clumsily written though, what I've tried to express may be.
Frankly, you don’t know what you are talking about at all. If you think otherwise, then you just go right ahead and cite the law that grants natural born citizenship to a person, and I’ll show where you are wrong. Also note, you have to be 2000cc short of brain matter to think a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen mother can be a natural born citizen while a statutory law was enacted by Congress to grant U.S. citizenship to such a child provided the conditions were met, including the condition for the father to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Hint, if it were possible for such a child to be a natural born citizen the Section 320 provision would have been entirely redundant, unnecessary, and superfluous. You guys cannot even think straight and make any logical sense whatsoever with your own self contradictions.