That question asks if a natural born citizen is an alien to the 14th Amendment. Without additional status, I'd have to say yes. In fact, how could it be otherwise? You admit natural born status is not bestowed by the government, but naturalized status is in fact bestowed by the government, right? Then how could those two statuses be equal? They are literally the difference between natural rights and subject status. So how are they not innately alien to each other?
Currently the Courts PRESUME naturalized status UPON natural born Americans, thereby depriving them of their rights, and replacing those rights with government granted privileges, subject status and liability to the statutory system. While that transfer of status is legally possible, as it involves the loss of rights I believe it is wrong to allow it as a mere unspoken presumption. It should be front and center and explicated in full for a citizen to clearly understand what they are choosing to accept - and to lose. But that is most certainly not the case, nor do I ever see it becoming one.
The issue is really the existence, the nagging existence, of negative rights. Everyone says they exist, but no one can point to their existence under the law, because the statutory system does not include them. Acting, therefore, as if they don't actually exist is the common tactic. But it is not the truth.
And I'll prove it. Here's my questions back to you: 1. Do negative rights exist? 2. Where are they under statutory law?
Step 1. A natural born citizen cannot be naturalized as a naturalized citizen, because a natural born citizen is already a citizen and you can only naturalize a person who is an alien. True or False?
The required response is either
A. True
or
B. False
Which one is your response?