Whatever it was, it is said to define NBC. If you were in the class of "children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States," you are NBC. If you are not in that class, you are not NBC. That's the way definitions usually work.
People who see the Act as a definition (and I would say that is the vast majority of them who confront this) reject the notion that this part of the act created a legal fiction, and was not a definition. But if it was a definition, it would have included at least some of the people born in the US (not Indians, some reference to state citizenship, and so on).
Seeing as how the 1790 Act doesn't define the citizenship of persons born in the US, I wonder where the people who cite 1790 Act as a definition go, to find the source of citizenship of persons born in the US, before the 14th amendment existed.
Washington would not invent a new term and not define it, then send it all over the country if it was not understood.
David Ramsay was that historian and friend of Washington, who took the time to write down a description. Born of citizens on US soil.
Vattel had it written down. It was the book in Independence hall that they used. We can't deny this truth.
If it required a naturalization act to include Cruz, then it required a naturalization act. Is it in our current law?
Everything I read keeps saying the 1790 is a dead letter. Does current law refer to a 1790 immigration act? Why are people saying the 1790 act was rescinded?