There are 14th Amendment citizens according to the Supreme Court, which is naturalization (by law) at birth.
"U.S. Supreme Court
Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)
Kawakita v. United States
At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, ..."
And
"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan., He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97.and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States,..."
Here we see SCOTUS in the modern usage of "native-born." The Supreme Court further stated that Kawakita was a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Kawakita had duel allegiances.
“There are 14th Amendment citizens according to the Supreme Court, which is naturalization (by law) at birth.”
B.S. No such thing as naturalization at birth. That is an insane concept.
“Here we see SCOTUS in the modern usage of ‘native-born.’”
Native born is not a seperate category from natural born. it is a smaller circle within the big circle. To call someone native born clarifies that they are a citizen from birth through “jus soli” as opposed to “jus sanguinis.” “Jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” are both citizens by birth, and possess equal status.
“There are 14th Amendment citizens according to the Supreme Court, which is naturalization (by law) at birth.”
I never can understand this weird distinction between citizens by nature and citizens by law. Maybe if we lived as subjects in a divinely-ordained kingdom, you could say that citizenship passes down from God to the baby through the blood of the parents. And this would be perfectly natural, not at all man-made. One could imagine the state as having existed for all time, and stretching into the infinite future.
However, you must be aware that there was no such thing as the United States, and therefore no natural U.S. citizens before passage of the man-made law known as the Constitution. How does that jive with your system? How do you deal with those (which includes everyone) who became citizens not by nature (which would have dictated their status as British subjects) but by law, as well all their offspring, who received their birthright upon the ratification of the Constitution? Aren’t we all naturalized?