That's not necessarily correct. According to the Foreign Affairs manual published by the U.S. Department of State, statutory citizenship may or may not be equivalent to natural-born citizenship under the U.S. Constitution.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 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.
(...)
d. (snip) 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.
Please see my post at #113.
The courts simply have not ruled on the matter. Being a “citizen at birth” or a “natural-born citizen” by statute may or may not make one eligible to the presidency under the U.S. Constitution. Such persons are absolutely citizens and do not require naturalization, but according to the State Department, there is no definitive answer to the question of their constitutional eligibility.
Unless and until the courts do rule, all discussion on the matter is pure speculation and all citations of the law on immigration and naturalization are interpretations and educated guesses.
LOL! As if the ability to be born with only one parent isn't bad enough!
You have to admire the way they twist words, though.
They ARE 'equal', but they are not the same. Statutory citizenship, or Naturalization, is a citizen by the positive law of Man.
Natural born citizenship is one designated by Natural Law, or what the Founders called the Law of Nature.
Are they equal, sure, but a statutory citizens do not have the priviledge of the ability to run for President or VP.
THAT is reserved for natural born Citizens.
It was the way it was supposed to work, anyway. Until government decided it had the ability to define damn well everything.