[MamaTexan]

who are textualists and originalists are going to look to that actual wording and the context of the Founding generation for guidance as to intent.

No, honest ones would see it as being for a limited purpose, not try to limp its meaning along for their own ambitions.

---

To paraphrase: In the beginning, the Founders wanted the children of citizens born overseas to be natural born citizens and not naturalized citizens.

But they didn't intend for it to last BEYOND the beginning, or they would have continued it in the 1795 Act.

[Nero Germanicus]

The difference in wording in the 1795 Naturalization Act is : “and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”

The 1795 Act was repealed in 1798 and the 1798 Act was repealed in 1802.

There might have been relevance to the term citizen versus natural born citizen between 1795 and 1868, although I know of no legal test of that. But since the 14th Amendment was adopted, there have only been two classes of citizen: born or naturalized.