A slightly revised version of my essay Originalism, Natural Born Citizens, and the 1790 Naturalization Act: A Reply to Saul Cornell is now posted on SSRN.
The revision contains a correction that, though likely not of interest to general readers, is worth noting for scholars on this subject. A key English statute is the act of 4 Geo. II, ch. 21, which gave "natural born subject" status to persons born abroad whose fathers were natural born English subjects. I had been persuaded that the correct date for this statute was 1730 (although previously in my long article on the meaning of natural born I gave the date as 1731). Thus the prior draft of the short essay gave the date as 1730. However, after outstanding research assistance from the USD law school library staff, I am again persuaded (conclusively this time!) that the date is 1731. This source indicates that the fourth session of the first parliament of George II began on January 21, 1731, and thus all statutes of the fourth regnal year of George II were passed in 1731. Thus the new revision of the essay gives the date as 1731.
In my defense, I'm not the only one to get confused here: Henry Henriques, in his classic treatment of U.K. nationality law "The Law of Aliens and Naturalization," gives the date of the act of 4 Geo. II, ch. 21 as 1730 (on pp. 35-36). Moreover, the fourth regnal year of George II began in June 1730, so I can see why one might think statutes from the fourth regnal year should be dated 1730. But I'm now convinced Henriques was wrong (a further warning about relying too much on secondary sources).