I was just reviewing the Katyal and Clement paper and am of the same opinion as Mary Brigid McManamon on the matter. They have, for whatever reason, cherry picked a few radical statutory departures from the accepted common law and then blatantly misrepresented the founders application of the common law as it applied to NBCs. They then go on to cite the Naturalization act of 1790 while ignoring the fact that the Naturalization act of 1795 repealed the Naturalization act of 1790 and specifically changed the words natural born citizens with the word citizens implying that they recognized a distinct difference between the two classes of citizens and meant to ensure that NBC status was not transferred to those born "born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States".
The paper and its conclusions are...spurious.
I see this all the time, and while some are of that opinion as to the why of the 1795 act and the removal of the term, both side agree that although sentiment was expressed by Congress in the 1790 act, the act was in part, a bridge too far and attempted to define part of article 2. and thus affected the 14th which can only be done via amendment. But you can't argue that the sentiment at the time was in favor of my position as the statute passed.
But later in 1795 rewritten to be the basis of the following naturalization policies of the US which have changed over time, but are constitutional granted authority.
Is that you Tribe?
LOL