But a citizen of the United States AT birth is not the same as a citizen of the United States BY birth.
Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portion of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2, Lectures on Law
Why could one not inherent before formally being recognized as a denizen? Because natural born citizenship is a political Allegiance inherited by blood.
If it's bestowed by man, to ANY extent, it's naturalization
----
Besides...do you REALLY think any part of the administrative organ would admit it granted itself the ability to create citizens at will and despite a person's Natural allegiance?
There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.”
The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.
Again, from the 19th century: “This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”—
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)