[ReignOfError]

The difference between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen is that the first can be so by naturalization statute while the latter requires no statute.

In other words, one is defined by law and the other is not. "I know it when I see it" isn't much of a legal standard.

[Ray76]

“I know it when I see it” isn’t much of a legal standard.

Please clarify.

[RegulatorCountry]

You're fairly new to this debate, I take it? "The Constitution does not at words say who shall be natural born citizens..." doesn't ring any bells? The legislature cannot just pass laws overriding the Constitution, either. There is well-founded logic and reasoning behind that statement you're dismisding, as well as case law and precedent to support it.

What do you have, that indicates an ability of Congress to make any legal determination as to the meaning of the term?

[DiogenesLamp]

In other words, one is defined by law and the other is not. "I know it when I see it" isn't much of a legal standard.

You misstate the point. One is defined by an act of law passed by men, the other is a citizen by their nature. Born to citizens and especially in their own country, they can be citizens of no other nation.

There is no Confusion as to whom they owe their allegiance, which is explicitly what the founders intended in creating Article II.