The answer to that is clearly seen in the 1790 act.
The 1790 act was written because of the requirement of the natural born citizen change in the Constitution. No one could @eet that requirement.
Reason 1: Original purpose of the “natural born citizen” provision in the Constitution
On September 4, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention changed the presidential eligibility requirement in the Constitution from “citizen” to “natural born citizen”. According to multiple historical sources (see Question 7: Original purpose), the purpose of the change was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency. Apparently, someone who is a U.S. citizen can also be a foreigner in some sense, but a natural born citizen is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.
During the Constitutional Era (1786-1800), the meaning of “foreigner,” in American jurisprudence, was not limited to persons born overseas. Anyone who was a citizen or subject of a foreign country, or who owed allegiance to a foreign power, was also a “foreigner”, regardess of his or her birthplace (see Question 8: Meaning of “foreigner”).
Since natural born citizenship pertains only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth [07], the only “foreigners” that the “natural born citizen” provision could have possibly excluded were persons who were foreigners when they were born. Consequently, the “natural born citizen” provision could not have achieved its purpose (the exclusion of foreigners from the presidency) to any extent or degree, unless “natural born citizen” is understood to mean a U.S. citizen who, when born, is not a “foreigner”, i.e., is neither foreign-born nor a foreign citizen or subject.
“The 1790 act was written because of the requirement of the natural born citizen change in the Constitution. No one could @eet that requirement.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. People did meet the requirements for presidency without “natural born citizen” being specified in the act. Anyone who was a citizen when the Constitution was ratified could also be president. But maybe you mean something else.
“Apparently, someone who is a U.S. citizen can also be a foreigner in some sense, but a natural born citizen is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.”
I think I pointed out to you that dual citizenship has historically been an issue for thousands of years. Is it divided loyalty? I do not think the founders precluded dual citizenship, but it is problematic for a legislator or president to have dual citizenship.
“the ‘natural born citizen’ provision could not have achieved its purpose (the exclusion of foreigners from the presidency) to any extent or degree, unless ‘natural born citizen’ is understood to mean a U.S. citizen who, when born, is not a ‘foreigner’”
Well I generally agree with the argument but not the conclusion. Naturalization is conveying citizenship on a foreigner. Congress has the power to determine when this applies or does not. The war of 1812 was partly due to the British forcing US citizens into the Navy of Great Britain, claiming they were “natural born subjects”.
Again, the naturalization act of 1790 demonstrates that the founders consider the parameters of who is a “natural born citizen” to be within the purview of Congress. They also considered parentage rather than place of birth to be the preeminent basis for conveying natural born citizenship (jus sanguinis rather than jus soli).