Yes it was repeal but it was ALSO replaced. And that act was repealed and replaced an so on and so forth till we get to the current legislation. And those laws define who is a citizen at birth and does not need to be naturalized.
And they left out the language about natural born citizen when they realized their error.
So dishonest. Even you understand that congress only has the powers of naturalization. They can NOT create a natural born Citizen by statute or positive (man made) law. “Natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.
From these early naturalization statutes, we can see that it is not sufficient to be a born “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment to qualify as a Presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While this amendment constitutionally makes those who qualify under its terms to be “citizens,” it does not nor was it ever intended to make these individuals Article II “natural born Citizens.” The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were well aware that Article II refers to “natural born Citizen” and that Article I and Article IV refer to “Citizen.” By chosing the word “citizen,” in the naturalization act of 1795, they left intact the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it existed under the law of nations which the Founders adopted as the national law of the new United States.