Natural born citizenship exists, but there is no Constitutional right to it. See Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It’s similar to Art II stating only persons of good moral character are eligible to be POTUS. Your definition of a person with good moral character may be different from my definition of good moral character. Since there is no Constitutional right to be judged as a person with good moral character, the definition will not be defined by the Court. In similar fashion, natural born citizenship status will not be defined.
Congress does not have authority to define natural born citizenship, only establish a uniform set of rules and regulations for immigration and naturalization.
Therefore, the only way to determine who is eligible for POTUS is to eliminate those who are not eligible. Non-U.S. citizens are ineligible. Persons under 35 are ineligible. SCOTUS has opined naturalized citizens are ineligible. Persons who have not been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years are ineligible.
Sorry but that argument skips entiry over the constitutional natural born citizenship requirement. Fundamental rule: It is necessary to give effect to each express constitutional provision. They cannot be left out of a valid analysis. (Especially when the founders were so concerned and careful. ). But I have bowed out of this discussion. It mostly results in partisan advocacy comments not germane to the subject. And I lack the time to respond to the sheer number of comments as so many good partisans want so much to advance the prospects of their favorite potential candidate(s). I may like a potential candidate a whole lot but that’s not the point. Thanks anyway though.