It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Because it was redundant. If they viewed it as a source of confusion or error, they would have done more than simply omit the words, they would have rectified the situation. Either you are born a citizen, or you are not. There is no "born a citizen but not a natural-born citizen" third type. And if you want to drop names of Founders to support your claim, remember, there were Founders in Congress in 1790, too, and some guy was President then... Oh, yeah, that would be George Washington!
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Yet you feel you can just make up new definitions and misquote and cherry pick rulings to support it? Where are the footnotes in the Constitution pointing out the citations of Vattel? You are basing your argument on half-definitions and the opinion, clearly identified as such, of the author of a book never cited by the Founders. It was just one of many sources utilized, and never cited. Blackstone is also cited in SCOTUS cases, even more frequently, was and has been a standard legal reference even into modern times, and it says something entirely different. So your non-cited, non-founding document is entirely irrelevant because the Founders said nothing whatsoever about the birthplace, but only about the status at birth, which, like it or not, it leaves to Congress to decide. Just like in the Federalist Papers, where multiple sides of the debate are presented, only one was ultimately included in the Constitution.
You are simply wrong, and stuck in your little memeplex. Good luck with that.