Ok, I'll bit. Let's explore that law approved March 26, 1790:
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any Common Law Court of Record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon ; and thereupon such person,shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And 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: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act: of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
There was no distinction as to the birth location of children born to aliens in the 1790 Act. Therefore, there was no such thing as birthright citizenship based soley on jus soli without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Had there been they would have said children of aliens born abroad. I say again... there was NO DISTINCTION as to the birth location of a child born to an alien. They were NOT citizens until the parents themselves became citizens.
And 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
This CLEARLY is opposite of Vattel's definition of natural born citizen. Thus the first Congress regarded citizenship differently than Vattel. That's the point.
To get the position you hold, you must show that Vattel was the definition intended for natural born status. We see the first Congress' act regarding such status to be counter to Vattel, and we find Ark to confirm English common law - not Vattel - as the foundation for citizenship.
Again, I ask: can you point to statute or legal decision that supports the definition of natural born status as set forth by Vattel? Because by the 1790 statute and the Ark and Elg and subsequent cases we find the English common law status being the basis for what a natural born citizen is.