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.
Actually the point is they were trying to extend the definition. But 5 years later realized that was improper, and settled for making the children of citizen parents who were born abroad citizens, not "considered" as Natural Born. Subsequent Supreme court cases have affirmed that those children are naturalized, because the only power congress has to make citizens is the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization. Being naturalized does not only include the individualized process of residency requirement, testing, oath taking and so forth. There are other ways defined in the Statutes.