Prove a negative? I don’t think so. First, you show me binding legal precedent that affirmatively states what NBC means. You can’t. Traditionally, nations have used various combinations of jus soli and jus sanguinis, Roman, French, British, many others. There is simply no basis to assume the founders had only Vattell in mind when they wrote what they did. Indeed, the Naturalization Act of 1790 may be the only time, and only for 5 years, that even a partial definition of NBC existed in statutory form, and that definition comports with the Cruz theory of jus sanguinis NBC status. As that document was created by the founding generation, the very men who put our Constitution together, it has substantial weight. But even so, that weight is only persuasive, not binding, because even that partial definition is no longer on the books. But it does provide insight to what the founders believed, and that evidence suggests they were not opposed to natural born status emerging from parentage alone.
Peace,
SR
Give me a break. Read post 82 and then tell me I’m wrong. I don’t think our founders were completely adhering to Vattel incidentally. I know they were fully aware of Law of Nations but I do not think it is clear that they applied his definition of NBC to article II, section I, clause 5. I think they adopted the English common law definition and I think there is ample evidence to support this.