Yes, these are different classifications. "people" is everyone, "citizens" are all citizens, "natural born citizens" are that sub-class of citizens that are citizens by birth, not naturalization.
"It further recognized and included language that made provision for the fact it would be several decades before it would be possible for anyone to be a "natural born citizen".
Yes, because obviously on July 4, 1776 nobody had been born in the United States. Their parents had nothing to do with it.
"...bear in mind certificates have generally requested the birthplace of both parents."
Because birth certificates are identity documents and establish familial relationships. They also include birthplace, which is sufficient for citizenship questions.
"Current immigration policies even today provide for some to be "natural born citizens" (google it yourself, don't take my word for it.)"
Does that mean something to you?
ridiculous to propose the founders wanted the son of a british citizen to be commander in chief.
That response presents a self-defeating logic trap inasmuch as you redefine words and argue as though they are the same.
Use of the word “citizen” in the Constitution recognized jus solis which had long been the prevailing doctrine. The much more exacting jus sanguinis doctrine was applied to a single federal employee out of the entire nation, its leader and commander-in-chief. What is clear and unmistakable is that both Hamilton Jay and George Washington sought to include in the Constitution the highest form of citizenship available for that office
What can you offer in support of your view that as between “citizens” and “NBC’s” the founders intended a lesser form of citizenship for the leader of the nation?
("It further recognized and included language that made provision for the fact it would be several decades before it would be possible for anyone to be a "natural born citizen".)
Yes, because obviously on July 4, 1776 nobody had been born in the United States. Their parents had nothing to do with it.
If you give that a second look you may decide parentage had everything to do with it. It is helpful to recognize that the Constitution provided “Citizens” could immediately serve in the House and Senate and as President. The purpose of the language was for the more demanding NBC standard to evolve once the nation had matured beyond the lifespan of (ordinary) citizens.
("...bear in mind certificates have generally requested the birthplace of both parents.")
Because birth certificates are identity documents and establish familial relationships. They also include birthplace, which is sufficient for citizenship questions.
Bingo! Big step forward in your thinking. Birth certificates are used to establish the newborn infant’s citizenship not that of the parents. The only relevance of the parent’s birthplace is to establish the infant’s type of citizenship.
("Current immigration policies even today provide for some to be "natural born citizens")
Does that mean something to you?
Since the policy expressly requires both parents be citizens, it should mean something to you in your analysis. It demonstrates the government has a more stringent form of citizenship depending on its goals - similar to the founder’s intention for the office of President discussed above.