Citizen in this use is like arguing that sperm are life so life begins before comception ... the fallacy hangs on missusing Organ or subunit and Oragism. Naturalized citizens are citizens. If law is cited to make one a citizen then they are not natural born, as in what the founders sought to establish for the safety of the Republic, child born to two United States Citizens on United Sattes soil or U.S. protectorate soil.
And if you want to play silly games like focusing on the term Crown, to ridicule that we aren’t fighting the Revolutionary War anymore, note first that the issue is divided loyalties, and the Founders sought to prevent such in ANY U.S. President.
“If law is cited to make one a citizen then they are not natural born”
Is that a legal argument, or philosophical mumbo-jumbo? What else would make you a citizen but law? I mean, what else does “citizenship” refer to but your legal status? Is citizenship a state of mind, or a state of being granted only by God?
“as in what the founders sought to establish for the safety of the Republic, child born to two United States Citizens on United Sattes soil or U.S. protectorate soil.”
If that is what they sought to establish, why didn’t they put it into that Constitution they wrote? Besides, the 14th amendment supercedes the opinion of the Founders on the issue of who is born a citizen. That’s how amendments work.