Yes subject to the provision that the father had resided at some point in time in the US. Here is the text to prove it quoting DIRECTLY from the act:
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
How is it that you still do not understand this?
First of all, Congress only has enumerated authority from We The People to establish uniform rules of naturalization. That means only to create a path to citizenship, it converts ALIENS into plain CITIZENS. That's is where their authority ends. They have nothing to do with NBC and it makes no sense for you to invest that power into their untrustworthy hands.
When they use the term natural born or citizen at birth it only means as a reference to those who do NOT require naturalization. They also will say that 'this person born to an ambassador is considered a foreigner' and does not require naturalization. It is a glancing reference, NOT a definition of a chronologically earlier term. And it is a separation of powers issue as well because Congress does not get to decide who can run for President ( We The People do ), nor do they get to decide who can run for Congress!
Congress does not get to define, edit, modify, rewrite or interpret the Constitution. That is you, in your mind connecting these unrelated dots and consequently turning the Constitution inside out in the process.
Finally, that 1790 Naturalization Act that you quoted was modified in 1795 and brought into line with original intent by dropping the confusing reference, because they knew people like you would read too much into it.
From NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act, research from a 1967 House member ...
In 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually "are" (not merely "considered as") natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term "natural-born" from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
You see? They saw you coming from a mile and two centuries away. There is tons of research into this for anyone so inclined to absorb it. But that is doubtful since approving their preferred candidate is all that matters now.
What is astonishing is seeing how alleged Constitution loving FReepers are literally begging for the Congress to butcher the Constitution through laws/acts/statutes because they are struggling to find anything to satisfy their belief system that a partial foreigner in the White House is no big deal. Well it is a big deal to many of us.
And that is where you are going wrong. The authority is NOT "path to citizenship" the authority is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is FAR MORE than just the power to naturalize or a path to citizenship.
The rule of naturalization includes:
Rules that govern who is able to be naturalized
Rules that govern who can never be naturalized
Rules about how to apply for naturalization
Rules on how citizens give up their citizenship
Rules on the process and procedures on how an alien becomes naturalized
Rules on who does not need to be naturalized
Rules on who is a citizen at birth by the circumstances of their birth (naturally born a citizen)