The words of the 1790 Act are not a definition, even though it's popular to think so, and even though the Senate claimed it was, etc.
The phrase that appear in there is "shall be considered as." This operates to create a legal fiction. A couple examples, to show that this is not a definition. It wasn't a definition in 1790, and it isn't now.
"X shall be considered as Y" means "X is not Y, but we will pretend it is."
There is a US regulation on social security, 20 CFR 416.1856. Who is considered a child. It says that if you are under 22 years old, you will considered a child. That is not a definition that a 21 year old is a child. It is a statement that the law will pretend they are a child, until they are 22 years old.
It was unconstitutional for the 1st Congress to define NBC in a statute, certainly to a birth abroad. The constitutionality was never tested, how often do we get a mix of election and an unqualified candidate? The law was repealed in 1795. Somebody probably figured out that what was done in 1790 was unconstitutional, and rather than test it in court, they got rid of it.
Here is another thought for you. Cuba has a statute that is similar to the US. When Ted was born, on his birthday, Cuba had the same claim on Ted that the US did. Born abroad of one citizen parent. Mom was US, Dad was Cuba, both countries automatically attach citizenship at birth. Now, the law looks at the birthday, and stops. It can't predict how the human's life will proceed.
Your interpretation here isn’t consistent. If “considered as” doesn’t mean a child was born NBC, then why do you say the act of 1790 was unconstitutional?
(Interesting that you believe the first major act on naturalization a mere one year after the Constitution was passed was unconstitutional).
“Consideration” can simply mean “under the law,” which is what we are talking about.
To be “natural born,” in the strictest sense, might mean to come into this world as the product of two different-sex parents, and born of a woman. Jesus Christ, then, was only partly “natural born,” in that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. That is, unless one only wants to speak of His birth, which appears to have been natural.
We could ask, what is CONSIDERED to be “natural-born citizenship” under American law?
“Natural born citizen” needs defining, and in the course of having been in and read some of the debates, it doesn’t seem like those who oppose Cruz’s candidacy even have one definition of it among themselves. If there is one, I would like to see it.
And what do you think of Hillary Clinton’s email situation?