They didn’t codify the precedent. The law says, “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 ...” They aren’t saying these children ARE natural born citizens, which was the language Blackstone used in reference to English common law, “all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves ...” The language in the 1790 naturalization act is softer, ‘considered as ...’ LOL. So the whole crux of your argument is that they used "consiered as" instead of is? That's just to silly for words.
The way you love to reading meaning into words that isn't there truly amuses me.
I’m amused that you play stupid, but it’s typical when you can’t counter the argument that was presented. Here, try an exercise.
Obama is considered as white.
Obama is white.
Which of these statements is more declarative??