The problem with the assertions in #5 and #6 is that they are fundamentally incorrect. In the first naturalization act passed by the first Congress and signed by George Washington, the words “natural born citizen” are used. Further, the section that contains those words clearly show that NBC status is tied to status obtained at birth and that such a birth does not require birth on US soil or inside US jurisdiction.
It was repealed 5 years later and replaced with another Act that had the natural born Citizen language removed. The Naturalization Act of 1790 is null & void.
Except that first act passed in 1790 only lasted for 5 years and expired in 1795. It merely codified into law the language of Article II that gave any children born of citizens "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" the right to serve as President. That time expired in 1795.
That is a false statement and a false conclusion. You omitted the phrase “considered as”, which directly indicates the person is not a natural born citizen, because it required the statute of law to authorize the person to be considered as a natural born citizen for purposes of immigration despite actually not being a natural born citizen. This is the same usage described by Sir edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 and earlier sources. Naturalized persons are also “considered as” citizens despite not being citizens at birth. Their being “considered as” citizens does not make them citizens at birth either. So, your example actually supports the observation of how a person born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents are artificial born citizens of the United States by operation of enactments of law by man with conditional residency requirements; whereas a natural born citizen has such status in the absence of an artificial law or conditional residency requirements. As Sir Edward Coke observed, it is the difference between datus and natus.