I respect the soundness of your point of view, however there is a legitimate argument on the other side.
The Founders and Framers who were in Congress in 1790, only two years after the adoption of the Constitution, saw fit to EXEMPT from needing to be naturalized “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
And secondly, the Framers actually discussed in the Constitutional Convention whether foreign born American citizens could ever become president and they settled on the 14 year residence requirement as the way that could happen.
From George Bancroft’s “A History of the Formation of the Constitution of The United States of America” (1882): “One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last decided. On the twenty-second of August, the Committee of Detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion, and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September, the Committee of States, who were charged with all unfinished business, limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but, as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President.” (Corroboration for the statements of Bancroft are to be found in Vol. 5 of Johathan Elliott’s “Madison Papers,” page 462, 507, 512 and 521, and in Vol. 3 of Henry D. Gilpin’s “Madison Papers” pages 1398 , 1437 and 1516)
No, they didn't EXEMPT the children from being naturalized. If that was all that was involved, Congress would have done nothing since children are automatically naturalized when their parents are through the concept of Derivative Citizenship.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/derivative-citizenship
Citizenship conveyed to children through the naturalization of parents or, under certain circumstances, to foreign-born children adopted by U.S. citizen parents, provided certain conditions are met.
Existing children of Naturalized citizens are naturalized with their parents, but children born AFTER naturalization are natural-born citizens. The Founders simply allowed this concept to operate overseas for a short time period and ended it by repeal in 1795.
-----
it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President..
So? The naturalization act at the time of the formation of the Constitution was for the Founding generation, and it was well understood it wasn't JUST Englishmen that could become citizens. If I remember my history correctly Lafayette (?) was offered citizenship by the Founders themselves, but politly turned it down.
It still provides no evidence that the Founders repealed the natural born clause of the 1790 Act, but intended for it to keep operating anyway.
And here you are with that cognitive dissonance again. The Act doesn't exempt anyone, it APPLIES to the foreign born children of American Citizens. It naturalizes them at birth. That is why it is called a "naturalization" act.
From George Bancroft’s “A History of the Formation of the Constitution of The United States of America” (1882):
1882 is a long ways from 1787. I put little stock in what people say nearly 100 years after the fact. If there is any support for this contention, you should have quoted the original sources, not this century after the fact assertion.