Under the 14th Amendment, as interpreted to date by courts, you were a citizen at birth.
Some argue there is a distinction between citizen at birth and natural born citizen, but such a distinction has never been recognized by US courts or administrative agencies.
I’m not saying such a distinction couldn’t exist, just that its existence has never been recognized and it seems highly unlikely to me that any court would recognize such a distinction given the literally explosive implications.
In fact, in one of the Supreme Court decisions that is relevant, one of the dissenters complained that the majority decision would mean a child of two Chinese coolies born in this country would be eligible to be president.
Since the majority overruled him, they implicitly agreed that this child of two foreign nationals (of unpopular race at the time) was indeed a natural-born citizen.
Turns out not to be quite correct. The state department has said that the issue is not settled as a matter of law. So while it's not been recognized that there is a difference, it's also not been recognized that there is not.
I never said that I wasn’t a “Citizen”.
I am not a ‘”Natural-born” Citizen, as my parents had a allegiance to the British Crown.
Your interpretation, based on faulty logic. What they overruled was the idea that he could not be a citizen at all. The minority could have stated a lot of things, some of which the majority would agree with, some they would not. What they actually ruled is what counts. They ruled that he was a citizen under the 14th amendment, with no mention, in the ruling, of him being natural born, since that was not at issue.