Equating the 1790 Naturalization Act's "natural born citizen" with the 1795 Naturalization Act's "citizen", is a failure to distinguish the meanings.
Ray, at least you are rational. You make points that have some validity to them.
Unlike that clown DiogenesLamp.
Here again you make a valid point, even if it's ultimately incorrect.
I don't fail to distinguish a difference in the meaning of "citizen" and "natural born citizen." I simply believe that when our Congresses subsequent to 1795 passed laws stating that children born abroad to US citizens were citizens, that they believed such children were natural born citizens, and that that was in fact their intention.
I'll put it another way: From the very beginning of our Republic, most people, including most of the public, most of our legislators, most lawyers, and most judges, including most of our Founding Fathers and their generation, believed that if you were a citizen at birth, then you were a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be President.
I think the historical evidence for that is very clear.
At the same time, there is almost no evidence at all that ANYBODY ever believed you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.
This belief appeared, among a FEW people, for the first time in US history, around 4 years ago.
So our Congresses, throughout history, didn't include the words "natural born" when they passed laws saying such people were citizens because (if they considered whether such people would be eligible to be President at all, which most of the time they didn't) they didn't notice any need to. Everybody pretty much understood that if you were born a citizen, then you were a natural born citizen.
In other words, if you are a CITIZEN, AND your CITIZENSHIP was acquired at the moment of your BIRTH, then you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
And, with the possible exception of the Third Congress in 1795, that has always been the intention of those Congresses who have passed our laws.
I hope that helps.