These same people by and large removed the term natural born citizen from the description and yet retained the term natural born citizen in the Constitution. Please explain why they did this. If, as you feel, they were expressing their original intent as to the meaning of natural born citizenship in 1790, what were they expressing by removing the term in 1795? Isn’t this the crux of the issue? You seem perfectly willing to give them credit for their intent in 1790 yet act like there was no intent in 1795.
They didn’t think the issue was all that important. “Natural born” was safely in the Constitution. Everyone knew what it meant. It only applied to presidential elections, not normal business. They obviously thought it was properly defined, and there was no need to keep using the term in mundane immigration legislation.
In any case, what matters is what they thought it meant when they drafted the Constitution. Later doesn’t count. Later needs two third of the Congress and three fourths of the state legislatures.