You are wrong, the 1795 act was silent on the question. You CANNOT assume the more restrictive classification if it is not stated.
You are reading into a non-statement what you want it to say.
The Founders operated on the logical and reasonable fact that they could never list everything *not* included. It's why they 'enumerated' powers.
They operated on what is called Rule of Exclusion, and it's been around a very long time.
§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
Since the Act of 1795 does NOT include the phrase 'shall be considered as natural born Citizens', citizens of that act are not considered to have those aspects, and thus are naturalized, not natural-born.
-----
Do you have any evidence to the contrary, or are you just going to tell me I'm 'wrong'?
Okay, I may have been misreading what you were trying to say.
Do you think I'm trying to say anyone born outside of the US today is NOT a natural-born citizen because of the Naturalization Act of 1795?