All most immediately as in ... after another election, different congress (not so much the founders anymore) and FIVE years later. Sound more like the ebb and flow of politics.
BTW, by your logic, this act has to be ignored as well ‘cause it was repealed and replaced with the naturalization act of 1798 (after only 3 years), which was repealed by the naturalization act of 1802 (after only 4 years).
And so on and so forth
No quite so fast. First of all it’s not my logic. If a law is repealed specifically then it cannot be considered, especially in the case of this law where the objections are well defined and trenchant to the exact point that you are trying to make.
The only change made by The Naturalization Act, passed by the United States Congress on June 18, 1798 (1 Stat. 566), was to increase the period necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from 5 to 14 years. There was no statement that this act repealed the 1795 act as there was about the 1790 Act in the 1795 Act.
Similarly the Naturalization Law of 1802 which the United States Congress passed the Naturalization Law of 1802 on April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 153) directed the clerk of the court to record the entry of all aliens into the United States. Again this new act built on the prior act and did not repeal it.
So you are trying to compare apples and pears. There are always going to be small modifications. They do not have the weight and the effect of a repeal. The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790.