Nope. George Washington says you are wrong by the definition of “natural born citizen” used in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Two kinds:
(1) at birth
(2) naturalized
And current law continues that formulation.
Does not your post #277 refer to the ***1952** Naturalization Act?
Now you want to talk about the very first act of Congress in 1790 which addressed citizenship requirements and was the only naturalization act of Congress that made mention of natural born citizen?
You’re playing games now?
Get Lost!
For those reading:
The 1790 Naturalization Act was written for Americans on the high seas or in transit and it referred the Natural Born Citizen requirement as observed for a child born to citizen parents (”Second Generation Citizens”) who were domiciled in the United States or its territories or possessions.
The question was what was the citizenship status of a child born to US citizen parents overseas on the sea?
The answer was the child is natural born if born to citizen parents who had residence in the United States or its territories or possessions. The word used today is domicile.
The issue was raised again under President Madison who confirmed that a relatively short time on a sea voyage or a mission abroad did not disqualify a child born abroad of citizens from consideration as natural born.
And current law continues that formulation.
A resort to statutory law is an exclusion of nature.