The statute was repealed for reasons which are not clear. Nevertheless, the statute was in error, at least in respect to the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. Any form of law with respect to citizenship which grants citizenship is by definition a man-made act of conferring citizenship at birth, rather than a natural consequence of birth requiring no statute of law to grant of confer the citizenship at birth. In the parlance of the English jurists any grant of citizenship at birth as the consequence of an act or statute is a form of naturalization at birth. Consequently, any attempt to use a statute to grant natural born citizenship constitutes instead the exact opposite of statutory citizenship in the form of naturalization by law at birth.
Under what part of U.S. law was Marco Rubio supposedly naturalized at birth?
Minor v Happersett
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Clear - either new citizens are born or they may be created by naturalization. Naturalization doesn't cover those born as citizens. Those who are born as citizens are natural born citizens.
Natural law is not one man's view in one book. U.S. law should always reflect our best understanding of natural law - OUR best understanding - not the best understanding of an 18th Century Swiss philosopher.