I hate when people quote the 1790 Act. That act is one of the few that was formally repealed because it contained mistakes. That was 5 years later & it was repealed so that it could not form any basis to set precedent.
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).
The Act is contained in its entiret at the above link.
The arguments I made remain valid, however, even with respect to the 1795 Act. There never was a two-parent requirement, and there has never been an absolute place of birth requirement (although where you are born and who your parents are do factor in). All the cherry-picked SCOTUS rulings and out-of-context quotes (not to mention the poor grammar skills) will not change it. That's the most annoying part - the deliberate misreading of the words of the Constitution and the claims that the Founders actually meant something they never bothered to put on paper. How is that any different from redefining 'militia'? If they want to change the rules, they need to get an amendment. That has been done nearly thirty times, so if their position has merit, surely they can persuade the people. Otherwise they are no different from the gun-grabbers and the administrative-statists.