Yes, under that very statute you cite, (the naturalization act of 1790) the Children of Non Resident Foreign fathers are forbidden by congress from receiving any sort of US Citizenship.
You have made my point for me. It was the intent of the First Congress, many of whom were delegates to the Constitutional convention and who ought to know what was meant by "natural born citizen", to agree that a non resident foreign father prevents even basic US citizenship for his offspring. That is the same status Obama possesses. Were it not for the "Cable act of 1924", and the "Women's Rights act of 1934, he wouldn't even possess basic citizenship. That he is a citizen at all was due to the fact of statutes passed by congress.
This half and half citizenship cannot be regarded as "natural", for it didn't exist until after 1924.
The words “natural-born citizen” mean “citizen at birth.” In the absence of congressional statutes, who was a U.S. citizen at birth would be determined based on the common law. However, the common law is determinative only when the legislature has not adopted a specific statute on the subject matter. In the 1790 statute, Congress provided that the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth so long as the parents had resided in the U.S. at some point. While it is not clear who would be a U.S. citizen at birth under common law (the Happersett Court noted that some authorities maintained that the position that only the U.S.-born children of two U.S. citizens would be citizens at birth under common law was incorrect, and the Court did not rule on the matter, since it was unnecessary for the disposition of the case), since 1790 the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens (with certain limitations) have been citizens at birth, and since at least the adoption of the 14th Amendment all children born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which I believe should exclude children of illegal aliens, but all three branches of government understand to include even them) are U.S. citizens at birth. The 1790 statute is silent on the citizenship of persons born within the U.S., so the common law would apply, and it is certainly arguable that had Marco Rubio been born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents in 1791 that he would not have been deemed a citizenat birth (although it isn’t a clear-cut decusion under the common law). But he was born in 1971, when it had been clear for over a century that a child of two permanent U.S. residents legally residing in the U.S. would be a U.S. citizen at birth if born in the U.S. And “natural-born citizen” means nothing more than a U.S. citizen at birth.
If you don’t believe me that a U.S.-born child of two permanent residents is a citizen at birth, try to bring an application for naturalization for such a person and see what the courts say. Were Marco Rubio to apply for U.S. citizenship, the courts would rule that he has been a U.S. citizen since birth and thus can’t apply for citizenship. O read about someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth because he was born in Puerto Rico, and his parents tried to “naturalize him” when they had live in Florida for a few years, and the courts ruled that he had been a U.S. citizen since birth and thus could not apply for citizenship, since only non-citizens may be naturalized.