The Naturalization Act passed by Congress in 1790 included the term "natural born", but the term was not defined. The Naturalization Act passed by Congress in 1795 REPEALED that passed in 1790 and DID NOT include the term "natural born".
Why is everyone stuck on a vague term in an Act that was repealed?
I've yet to see any legal document from Congress or the courts that defines "natural born", especially in the way you and others are interpreting it.
Please provide a legal document from a reputable source that supports your definition of "natural born".
... but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreign-born child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United States, and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees declared in Afroyim. ...Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)Bellei was not "born . . . in the United States," but he was, constitutionally speaking, "naturalized in the United States." Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.
If I'm Cruz, I don;t want to submit to a court ruling on the merits, where my opponent will point to this SCOTUS authority for the proposition that citizenship that depends on a statute is naturalization, regardless of whether a naturalization procedure was undertaken.