Which Congress promptly removed in the next Naturalization Act of 1795 because legislation cannot change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. They fixed their error.
But here is what was said though,
"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: . . . "
Here again, the father's citizenship via jus sanguinis is passed onto their child. And the wording should have been stronger than the word "considered". An unambiguous word to use, if Congress had no doubts, would be the word "are" in place of the word "considered". What was Obama's father again? That's right, he was Kenyan citizen and subject to Great Britain.
Is that the reason, or is that speculation?
Here again, the father's citizenship via jus sanguinis is passed onto their child.
I don't deny that, just like I don't deny US vs Ark was based on jus soli. But either is beside my point in that the act as passed by Congress was counter to Vattel, which required both jus sanguinis AND jus soli; Congress saw otherwise.
As a result, to claim that Vattel's position is what the founders meant is quite disingenuous simply by the actions of the founders in their first Congress. Vattel may have been a component, but it was by no means the exclusive guiding principle used at that time.
It's clear from the words "that may" that the First Congress was trying to widen the definition to cover those born outside the country -- but it was still "children of citizens of the United States", as the Senate's SR511 noted.