That's a bit of a rhetorical minefield, but most people (and the natural take) is that "natural born" and "naturalized" are mutually exclusive. The arguments center around what it takes to be considered "naturalized." Most people take that as having to go through a proceeding of some sort, and if a person doesn't go through the proceeding, they aren't naturalized. The next step in chain of logic is that if they didn't go through a naturalization process, and they were a citizen at birth (and here the analyst skips the question of "citizen by statute" or "citizen even if there was no statute"), then they are a natural born citizen.
-- a person who must go through the naturalization process can not be natural born. --
I think everybody would agree with that.
I think those are the weeds I get lost in. (And the invective that comes to dominate the discussions make it hard to get out of them.)
You, my FRiend, I can rely on for clear and concise observations and analysis.