Do I have that right?
You refer to Vattel quite a bit, as the authority for your propositions. He's an excellent obeserver of law, but I question his exposition as being superior over the constitution, when it comes to interpreting and applying the constitution.
Round and round it goes and where it stops no one knows.
“Whoever Congress naturalizes at birth is an NBC”?
No. That is not what I said. Where did you get that? You are apparently unable to let go of your preconceptions about the matter and even temporarily entertain a different viewpoint.
“by your hydrogen atom example, children born abroad to one citizen parent have always been NBC of the US.”
Read it again. Hydrogen exists whether we observe it, describe it, label it. “Natural born citizenship” does NOT. So, no. It is a legal and philosophical construct.
“I question his [Vattel] exposition as being superior over the constitution”
Vattel was a French philosopher who greatly influenced our founders. They were all well educated in his writings. It is his definition of natural born citizen that is most often cited. But you have to read in context.
The value of reading Vattel is not that what he says has greater authority than the Constitution. He has NO legal authority. He did however expound natural law. It is self evident truth that much of the Constitution is based on. For example, the right to bear arms is based on the natural right to protect ourselves and our property. What he said clearly was on the minds of our founders and serves to help us understand their intent, especially when it is not clear in matters such as this.
But obviously it is only reasonable to put the founders’ own words above any outside commentary when it comes to understanding their intent.