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The 1795 Act was repealed in 1798 and the 1798 Act was repealed in 1802.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.
Those have always been the 2 classes of citizens, but that wasn't the discussion.
The discussion hinged on the repealed naturalization Act...the one YOU said was the only one to mention natural born citizens. The one YOU kept using as some kind of solid, immutable Intent of the Founders despite the fact it's repeal meant it had no further operation in law.
Now you ramble about other repealed acts as if they had some relevance to the subject at hand. LOL!
You're deflecting again.
Acquisition of U.S. citizenship at birth by the authority of Federal law is a form of naturalization at birth. Any foreign citizenship and with it an allegiance to a foreign sovereign and an obligation for obedience to foreign laws negates any possibility of qualifying as a natural born citizen who has never been subject to an obligation for obedience to a foreign sovereign and subject to foreign laws.