Sorry Bret but to quote Professor Akhil Reed Amar, “each word of the Constitution is to be given meaning; no words are to be ignored as mere surplusage.” Therefore it is insufficient to equate “natural born citizen” with “citizen” lest you consider “natural born” to be surplus. Note well that the founders made such a distinction in Article I versus Article II, adding the words “natural born” in Article II, Section 1 listing the qualifications for the Office of President.
Natural born citizen is being compared to the only OTHER type of citizenship recognized by the US Constitution going forward - naturalized citizens.
Citizens means all types of citizens. There has been, in the history of this Republic - only three types. Those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (most were natural born subjects of England) and they are all dead at this point. The other two types are “naturalized” and “natural born”.
One is either a citizen at birth with natural allegiance - or one is naturalized via a legal process.
This view of the law doesn't render any verbiage of the Constitution superfluous.