If we follow your logic, then NO ONE is a natural born citizen because there is no current law enacted by Congress that defines anyone as a natural born citizen.
The Framers in Article II distinguished between a citizen and a natural born citizen. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
The distinguishing characteristic was parental US citizenship.
Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795, et seq, no longer made such a distinction and declared all persons naturalized to be citizen.
Are we to conclude that subsequent to 1795 there were no further natural born citizens?
Are we to conclude that other children born with parental US citizenship - those who were not born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, those born within the United States - are natural born citizens?
Or are these other children born with parental US citizenship within the United States something other than natural born citizens? Why? Was it necessary that they be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born citizens?
Who are the post 1795 natural born citizens?
The reasonable conclusion is that those born within the United States with parental US citizenship are natural born citizens.
You AREN'T following our logic, because if you were, you would understand that "natural citizens" are not made by laws, they are made by natural allegiance.
It simply cannot be explained more simply than this. If it requires a law to make you a citizen, then you are not a NATURAL citizen.