It's certainly possible that those who passed the 1795 Act may have intended, by the change in wording, to exclude children born abroad to US citizens from Presidential eligibility.
Let's grant the point for the sake of argument.
Even so, it doesn't change the fact that the First Congress, which (with President Washington) included 40% of those who had just signed the Constitution) intended for such people to be "natural born citizens," eligible to the Presidency.
That fact alone destroys the claim that it took birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen, or to make someone eligible to be President.
And that action has the stamp of approval on it of 40% of the signers of the Constitution, which - aside from the Constitutional Convention itself - was almost certainly the biggest gathering of signers of the Constitution that ever took place.
I have no issue with foreign born children of US citizens (plural) being “natural born citizens”.
My issue is with mixed nationality parentage which inherently leaves it open for divided loyalty. I see no precedent that makes a divided nationality parentage (especially if it is the father) having children born abroad that are “natural born citizens”.
For that matter there is serious doubt about the anchor baby citizenship, let alone giving anchor babies “natural born citizenship”.
Remember at the time of our Constitution, most countries assigned citizenship by the nationality of the father and the mother could not vote.
And we dare not mention the issue of foreign born B_tard Children to mixed nationality parentage conception.