If the part you cited does not presume to define "natural born citizen" then why did you cite it? If it does, I point out that you cannot re-write constitutional law through a statute.
Because I've already seen these debates with you on prior threads, and I've come to the conclusion that you have a particular viewpoint you're rather committed to in spite of the plain language of the Amendment itself.
Your argument that the congress accidentally re-wrote the intentions of the framers in 1787 when they specified "natural born citizen", through the use of the 14th amendment, (which does not say "natural born citizen" in it anywhere) is not something to be regarded as serious.
Unless there was an amendment specifically written to *CHANGE* the presidential eligibility requirements, it remains the same as it was in 1787. I believe this view is regarded as "strict constructionism". I don't do "living constitution" bullsh*t.
You can't amend the constitution through a back door trick. It has to be amended overtly and with full understanding of the change to be made by the congress and the ratifying states.
You call the 14th Amendment purely a "naturalization amendment", when the Amendment itself explicitly differentiates and distinguishes between citizenship attained by birth and citizenship attained by naturalization.
Were former slaves born citizens, or were they naturalized?
There is also the Natural Law aspect of the US Constitution.
You can be born a US citizen jus sanguinis (your parents were citizens) or jus soli (you were born within the US).
For Natural Law to apply as it does for US qualifications for President...BOTH must be true.
This prevents any other nation from having a claim, no matter how convoluted, over the citizen seeking to be elected president of the United States.
Ultimately, we are living in a post-Constitutional nation. It died. The horrors of a dying empire are imminent.