You keep manipulating and conflating terms and language. A nation can determine who are its "Citizens". But per Natural Law and the Laws of Nature it cannot determine who is a "natural born Citizen" of the country. The "Citizens" procreate the "natural born Citizen" kind when two Citizen parents (born or naturalized themselves) have their child born in the country. See the clear cut definition found in the preeminent legal treatise on The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law by Emer de Vattel (1758/1797), which the founders and framers used to justify the Revolution and write the founding documents. That treatise was also widely used by the U.S. Supreme Court during the first 50 years to start establishing U.S. Federal Common Law. Vattel was cited in the SCOTUS Venus case of 1814. For Vattel's clear cut definition of "natural born Citizen", see Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212:
https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Also Mr. Ultra Sonic, see the Euler Logic Diagram below if you have trouble with adjectives modifying a noun, and understanding that a "natural born Citizen" is a subset of all "Citizens", the largest subset for most counties, i.e., the children born in the country of its citizen parents, plural. But it seems to me you do not wish to be logical but instead choose to use social engineering skills to manipulate terms and language to push your Progressive agenda to subvert the U.S. Constitution original intent, meaning, and purpose (the WHY) for the "nbC" term.
See the clear cut definition found in the preeminent legal treatise on The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law by Emer de Vattel (1758/1797), which the founders and framers used to justify the Revolution and write the founding documents. Not only do I fail to see why a treatise on **international law** would have any bearing on a nation's own standards for determining citizenship, your citation of the Venus case is malapropos: no question of birthright citizenship was under discussion or investigation. All of the citations of Vattel were in service for determining a dispute regarding property rights, forfeiture, and restitution in a case where seizure of ships on the high seas was involved...in other words, a case wherein the Law of Nations actually comes into play, because it involved a dispute between two or more nations! (It should also go without saying that Vattel's definition is tied to the civil law system of the European continent; it has no bearing on the English common law, which the American system of law is derived from.)
Emer de Vattel was dead and buried before the Declaration of Independence, much less the Constitution. A book on international law has no controlling interest on the domestic laws of a nation, especially when you have over two centuries of Federal and State court decisions to work with.
So you can stow away your "Euler Logic Diagram", because it invokes a category error: the second circle relies on actual United States statute, whereas the third and inmost circle relies on a definition provided by a Swiss civil law specialist in a book focusing on international law. Why should Vattel take precedence over the overwhelming extant evidence favoring the common law notions of "jus soli", insofar as America is concerned?
You keep manipulating and conflating terms and language. A nation can determine who are its "Citizens". But per Natural Law and the Laws of Nature it cannot determine who is a "natural born Citizen" of the country.
Wong Kim Ark, 149 U. S. 649, 716 (1898)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Being the sovereigns, the People of the United States can determine who are the citizens of the United States, and with the 14th Amendment they did so for all persons born in the United States.
Regardless of what anyone may have said, or be misinterpreted as saying, or just wrongly imagined to have said, the 14th Amendment established a constitutional standard of citizenship which overruled or struck down anything which can be misinterpreted or imagined to have been contrary to the 14th Amendment.
In the Senate, Sen. Jacob Howard offered an amendment to the Bingham bill to include a citizenship clause of Sen. Howard's drafting. Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, page 2890, column 2, near the bottom.
The words proposed by Sen. Jacob Howard were incorporated into the Constitution via Section I of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.] Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
