Take a grape and define it as sweet tasting with a green skin and seeds inside. Just because an "orange interior" was not excluded does not permit that a papaya is also a grape. It only means that the grape requires further definition.
Your "inclusive" and "exclusive" argument only emphasizes the need for the legislative and legal systems to further define "natural born". Until such occurs, in my opinion (humble as it is), we have to use the definitions that are historically provided such as they are.
Jurisdiction-in-birth and allegiance-in-birth are referenced in several documents as being prerequisite to the "natural born" status. There are no other definitions at this time -- so that's the grape we're left with for the time being.
I am sincerely in support of defining this grape further. But until then, from the historical and Constitutional point of view available to me, papayas are not now, nor have they ever been, grapes.
From the evidence available, from the only decisions Congress has made on the subject, it appears that Congress has made a distinction between “naturalized” and “natural born” Citizen.
By and large, almost every Citizen fits into one of these two groups.
I can find no authority, anywhere, which shows that a person who was a Citizen, at Birth, is not, simultaneously, a Natural Born Citizen.
I do take note of the fact that you seem to admit, now, that I MIGHT be right.
You simply claim, now, that I have not been proven correct.