This is true today as it was at the adoption.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(G) “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”
It is indisputable that a naturalization statute can produce a “citizen at birth”
Art. II in relevant part: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
In your construction, a "citizen at birth" by naturalization statute is a "natural born citizen"
In your construction: "No Person except a natural born citizen citizen at birth by naturalization statute, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
Since “Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen” ”citizen at birth by naturalization statute” there is no difference between the two clauses of Article II. Such a construction is impermissible.
You're not making any sense, Ray.
Of course there's a difference.
All persons who were "natural born citizens" were eligible. This included Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and so forth.
Persons who were "citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" were also eligible. This actually included all of the aforementioned natural born citizens, so it wasn't written to make them eligible.
So who was added by that clause?
It added James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton (who most likely would've become President if he hadn't died in a duel with the Vice-President of the United States at a young age), and all of the other foreign-born patriots who had come over here and risked their lives and fortunes for American independence.
So there is a very clear difference between the two clauses.
Yes, the second clause - AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN - also included everybody who was already in the first category.
But it wasn't written to be in effect solely that week.
The day after the Constitution was adopted, children were born.
They were not included in the second clause. They were not citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
They WERE included in the first clause, if they were born US citizens.
So the two clauses refer to two different groups of people. Yes, there's some overlap. But over time, the overlap vanished.
The first group was composed of all natural born citizens, or (to use Bayard's term) US citizens by birth.
Such people, whether born in 1741 or 1961, are eligible.
The day the Constitution was ratified, that group included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone else who had been born in the Colonies that were now the "United States."
The day after it was ratified, new people began to be added to the group of natural born citizens by birth.
The second group included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone else who was a citizen at the time of ratification.
It included all natural born citizens (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc.) PLUS James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and many others who had been born outside of those Colonies, but who had become naturalized citizens of a Colony or State since birth.
As time went on, that group dwindled to zero as the Founding Generation died off.
So the two groups were different. Overlapping, but different.