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'?
Your logic is correct, to a point. What you miss is the previous INCLUSION. With that inclusion therefore, to restrict (without ambiguity), the new (1795) act would need to expressly exclude what was previously included. If the previous act limited the status of citizenship, the general use of “citizen” would not change that, either.
Since the most general term, “citizen” was used, it is imcorrect to assume a restriction that was not previously stated. The citizen statement was obviously put there to clarify that, in spite of the stated changes, the children born to citizen parents continue to be citizens. The logical assumption is that their previous status of “natural born” is also unchanged, since it was not explicitly removed.
This act is dealing with citizenship, not specifically with presidential eligibility, if it were otherwise your assumption might carry a bit more weight.
So - to summarize:
The previous act specifically stated that a person born to citizen parents overseas was considered “natural born”.
The 1795 act adds some restrictions to naturalization from the previous act, most notably a 5 year residency requirement instead of 2 - and included the children of newly naturalized citizens as citizens. In this case, since the parents were naturalized, and the children were born prior to that naturalization, it is logical to assume their “naturalized” status. In other words, they were not US citizens at birth, but by virtue of their parents’ change of citizenship, their citizenship also changed - or, they became automatically “naturalized”.
It then states that children born abroad to US citizens are to be considered citizens. They are citizens AT BIRTH, by virtue of their birth, and therefore do not require naturalization, in other words, they are “natural born” citizens.