Is it ever considered that “natural born” was / is a contrast to “naturalized”?
That is, a person who must go through the naturalization process can not be natural born.
OK:
Murdering Soddie Rapist "A" comes to the US and seduces an American tart and leaves. A child is born and subsequently raised to the age of 13 as an American. Then his Soddie father comes back and gets him, takes him back to the fatherland for radicalization.
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.