[philman_36]

7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT
7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents
7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.
7 FAM1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United State s, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

There can be no statute for a natural born citizen. It is a state of nature.
And the only "Constitutional purpose" of a natural born citizen is for the office of POTUS/VPOTUS.

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)
Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

There is that word considered again.

Now let's look at the law and not what is added onto what it says...
Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1101 - Definitions
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Snip...(36) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Snip...(38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

There is no definition for "state" (lower case "s") and the times when it does come up is in regards to a "foreign state". So (23) is simply stating the obvious and "by any means whatsoever." can mean "at birth, like the US has and which I linked to earlier.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I’ve posted all of that countless times at FR, but you aren’t expected to know that. So carry on.

[Cboldt]

I think "not considered" is the inverse of "shall be considered as."

For "shall be considered as," the law pretends something is, that it is not. "For purposes of excise tax, an apple shall be considered as an orange."

For "shall not be considered", the pretends something is not what is actually is.

Both are legal fictions that can be useful for various reasons. I suspect the reason that language is in there, is to get around the result of the Bellei case for persons granted naturalized citizenship at birth. We will pretend they are not naturalized (or that they are naturalized in the US, even though they are naturalized wherever they were born), and thereby preclude stripping citizenship from them.