So are you now saying that foreign law does matter in who the US considers to be or not to be a Natural Born Citizen? Because it was just a week or so ago that you said the opposite.
Shanks v. Dupont (1830): The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown.
The court acknowledged that citizenship naturally follows the condition of the father. The children of those fathers who adhered to the crown were considered Natural-born subjects. The children of those fathers who adhered to the new republic of the united States, were natural-born Citizens. The Constitution places treaties on equal footing with U.S. law and the Constitution itself.