I refer you to the Naturalization Act of 1790, adopted one year after the Constitution was adopted, directly defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.
I invite you to 1 Stat. 102-103 (March 26, 1790), An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
If you see a definition of natural born citizen, quote it. In any case, this act of 1790 was repealed, in its entirety, in January 1795.
[page 102]Margin note:
Statute II.
Repealed by act of January 20, 1795, ch. 20.
Alien whites may become citizens, and how.
- - - - -
Chap. III. -- An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a)
Section I. Be it enacted byu 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;
(a) This act was repealed by an act passed January 29, 1795, chap. 20.
The acts relating to naturalization subsequent to the act of March 28, 1790, have been: "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," January 29, 1795, chap. 20. Repealed April. 14, 1802.
An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the Subject, passed April 14, 1802, chap. 28.
An act in addition to an act entituled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the subject," passed March 26, 1804, chap. 47.
An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization, passed March 22, 1816, chap. 32.
An act in further addition to "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," passed May 26, 1824, chap. 186.
An act to amend the acts concerning naturalization, May 24, 1828, ch. 116. Act of July 30, 1813, ch. 36.
[Page 104]
[Margin note]
Their children residing here, deemed citizens.
Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c.
Exceptions
- - - - -
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons 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. (a)
Approved, March 26, 1790.
That does not provide a definition of natural born citizen. It provides an example of a natural born citizen. It only applies to births beyond sea, and is inapplicable to births within the United States; i.e., the vast majority of natural born citizen births. A dachshund is an example of a dog. Dachshund does not define dog. Not all dogs are dachshunds. Not all natural born citizens are born beyond sea. A child of two illegal aliens, born in a detention center in the United States, is born a United States citizen. The law of March 26, 1790 was repealed in its entirety on January 29, 1795. Why do you dwell upon a statute law that was repealed more than two centuries ago?
If the 1790 law is seen as defining citizenship today, then citizenship of persons born beyond sea is restricted to free white persons.
For domestic births, the relevant law is the 14th Amendment, that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the United States, your personal vision of current law notwithstanding.
The Act of 1795 includes:
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: 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, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
The words "natural born" were eliminated. As a natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, specifying "natural born" in this context was surplusage and could be omitted without change of meaning. Everyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.
The children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States gave rise to disagreement whether that meant children of two citizen parents, or one citizen parent. That has been resolved in favor of one citizen parent.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep401815/
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 816 (1971)
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).
Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 301.1-1 Introduction(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
Back to that letter of John Jay to George Washington, stipulating that a “natural born citizen” only should be in charge of the American army.
Read the original for the first time.
Say it along with John Jay. A "natural born citizen." Stress the word born. Say it to yourself over and over and eventually it will sink in.