According to the Naturalization act of 1790, Someone born outside our borders to a non-citizen father does not get American Citizenship.
What it tells you is that citizenship descends from the Father, just as does the family name.
As I said, the Act has been replaced, but its value now lies in the fact that it defines what the founders meant by “natural born citizen”.
It is a fallacy to assert that "natural born" means "subject to the whim of the legislature when they see fit to change it's meaning."
"Natural born" means born in accordance with the laws of nature, not the laws of man.
"Citizenship" is a consequence of the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. It is not "defined" by the Declaration, it is merely recognized as a natural condition.
It is a fallacy to assert that “natural born” means “subject to the whim of the legislature when they see fit to change it’s meaning.”
*********
“Natural born” was a legal term in that era. The whole debate is that people are trying ignore its meaning as stated in our founding document. Our Bill of Rights was initially subject to the “whim” of the legislature.
******
“Natural born” means born in accordance with the laws of nature, not the laws of man.”
The 1790 Naturalization Act begs to differ; that is why it never references the laws of nature. All births are in accordance with the laws of nature. Birth has nothing inherently to do with citizenship of the United States.
*****
“Citizenship” is a consequence of the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. It is not “defined” by the Declaration, it is merely recognized as a natural condition.”
That is complete nonsense. The Declaration lays the groundwork for separation from England; citizenship as you mean it, is not addressed.