The meaning of the word natural is not in dispute.
Well that’s good. It seemed like you were one of those morons who thought “natural born citizen” meant the same thing as “born citizen.” Can you believe these cranks that thing the word “natural” doesn’t mean anything?
In this context it is. There are those that says if descends from British Common Law which argued those born on the King's land owe a "natural and perpetual allegiance" to the King.
There are those out there who disregard the fact that this is completely inconsistent with a nation that as their first act of existence, explicitly rejected the premise that they must have a perpetual allegiance to a King.
The very document which created US Citizenship cites "the laws of nature and of nature's God" in explaining why they don't have to have a perpetual allegiance to a king.
The other side (my side) argues that US Citizenship is based on the concept of "natural law" as articulated by Natural law philosophers such as Locke and Vattel.
Even more strongly supporting the assertion that Vattel is the basis of our citizenship is the fact that no other writer on natural law articulated the right to throw off the yoke of Monarchy. Only Vattel (writing from the only Non-Monarchy in the world) assets that people have a right to be independent and form whatever government they so choose.
Even many of those who insist our citizenship is based on English Common law (with it's perpetual allegiance to the King requirement) acknowledge that our Declaration of Independence was heavily based on the writings and principles put forth by Emerich de Vattel.
So yeah, the meaning of the word "natural" is disputed within the context of US Citizenship.