The final decision by the 10th Circuit in the Craig case, althoug denying him standing under Article III, makes clear that the 1790 statute, nor, for that matter any other statute, does not define or establish a requirement specifically stated in the Constitution since the Constitution is superior law to a statute.
Where did I say that the statues, 1790/95 or later did anything of the sort. The 1790 statute was likely unconstitutional, although with the words "shall be considered as natural born citizens" is not quite the same as "shall be natural born citizens". Perhaps the intent was not to redefine the term, but rather to say that they shall be treated the same as NBCs, without the eligibility to the office of President, since that would be violative of the Constitution. In any event the 1795 act left out "natural born". So Congress, using it's power to define a uniform rule of naturalization (the title of both the 1790 and 1795 acts were "An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" ("an" is not a typo, that's what the act said, and what the Constitution says.) All I said was that even today a child of two US citizen parents, born outside the US is a *citizen*. Like the authors of the 1795 act, I deliberately left out "natural born".