Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790)Ah, yes...the old cut and paste...Let's see what 5 minutes on the Net shows...
A Legal History of Chinese-Americans FEDERAL STATUTES/LAWSAn Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, March 26, 1790.Snip
..."the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (1 Stat. 104). Repealed on January 29, 1795 by An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore on that subject." (1 Stat. 414).So much for his due diligence.
“the children of citizens of the United States”...
The “key word” - parents is plural....”at least one parent” would be singular and is the central issue of Obama’s citizenship status by birth. Current citizenship status is a whole issue of its own.
Relax - Breathe - Smile
in the its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that ‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790)
Now that's interesting. But what was left unsaid was that the 1795 statute, 5 years later, which repealed and replaced the 1790 statute, did not contain that language, and none since has done so either. Subsequent statutes have made such persons citizens at birth, if both parents were citizens,and even if only was one, but that comes with restrictions. But since 1795, no law has used the "natural born" language.
Thus rather than indicating what the founders thought the definition of "natural born citizen" was, I believe it reflects an attempt to change that definition. If such persons already were natural born, why bother with the wording in the law? Then I belive in '95 they released they did not have the power to redefine a Constitutional term, absent an amendment, and that their power only extends to rules for naturalization, which is what the Constitution grants them.
OTOH, they may not have been trying to redefine the term, because of the words "shall be considered" rather than "shall be". Either way, it's not the law now, nor has it been since 1795.