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.
OK, My question is this. Do you think that the combination of what they presented within their use and then removal of the term natural born citizen in the Acts of 1790 and 1795 in describing the same set of conditions gives us a clue as to whether or not location of birth was relevant to the definition? It certainly appears this way to me.