Easy now, we’ve had a good discussion, no need to devolve it into belittlment and conscension.
My point was that the orginal act gives us keen insight into the writers and framers intent concerning what constituted in their mind who was a “Natural born citizen”.
The reason I refer to the Naturalization Act of 1790 is it was the only US statute ever to use the term “natural born citizen”.
Granted the Nat Act of 1795, 1798, and 1802 superceded the original act but with minor changes.
That keen insight, insight which you are blind to despite being glaringly obvious and which has repeatedly been pointed out to you and which has been explicitly stated to be so by the Supreme Court, is that these persons required a naturalization act.