No one is "naturalized AT birth." That's sophistry. Naturalization is strictly a statutory process.
By the Birther's own sainted Vittal "native born" and "natural born citizen" are interchangeable. The very first Congress itself shunned Vittal's constricting view by expanding "natural born citizen" to include those born to American citizens abroad or at sea.
This shows a few things: "natural born citizen" and "native born" are fungible and the definition of either is malliable along the lines of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.
The only "open question" that could exist for someone like Obama is if he ever made use of his possible dual citizenship or otherwise contended to be an immigrant for his benefit. If he made no assertion or positive claim, the matter is likely moot.
By contrast, George Romney was never eligible for Mexican citizenship since they had no Jus Soli policy for children of resident aliens. He was only ever American by birth and by the thinking of our first Congress and President Washington, evidenced by the "Naturalization Act of 1790," was a "natural born citizen."
My view is this: if SCOTUS took this up, they'd find "natural born citizen" is whatever Congress (and the State Dept.) says it is and interchangeable with "native born." In other words, if you weren't naturalized or never a citizen, they'd find you eligible to hold the office of POTUS. Given the nature of this SCOTUS, they'd leave questions of "divided loyalty" to the voter.
True, but statutory law is MAN MADE, or positive law. The only type of citizen it can create IS a naturalized citizen.
Only Natural Law can create a Natural-born Citizen.
***
By the Birther's own sainted Vittal "native born" and "natural born citizen" are interchangeable. The very first Congress itself shunned Vittal's constricting view by expanding "natural born citizen" to include those born to American citizens abroad or at sea.
Since you post begins with TWO [three if you count the snarky 'tin foil' comment] false assumptions, I didn't bother reading further.
Congress didn't shun or expand Emmerich de Vattel's definition....they FOLLOWED it.
-----
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Law of Nations
And you MIGHT just try acting like you have at least hit puberty by not deliberately MISSPELLING the man's name when the Founders had so much respect for him.
Unless, of course, you have no respect for the Founders.