Bombast is not persuasive.
The naturalization act you cited specifies “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”.
You behave like a foul mouthed little boy.
YOU'RE the person who started the exchange, by rudely (and wrongly) saying that what I had just said was "WAY WAY beyond stupid."
You said:
The naturalization act you cited specifies “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled...
And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..."
These are the words of the First Congress. The Act was approved by that First Congress and promptly signed into law by President George Washington. The group that approved this law contained 40% of the men who had signed the Constitution, and undoubtedly more who had voted to ratify it.