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.
Which it does by repealing the previous Act.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
------
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”.
Yes, children become naturalized when their parents become naturalized by the process of derivation.
-----
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.
True, but the fact that naturalized citizens have natural-born children has been a standard since day one.
------
I also found it interesting both Acts contain the proviso:
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Most likely to prevent the tie of allegiance from being stretched too thin by having generations of 'natural borns' born overseas, IMHO.