The US Supreme Court have termed persons made citizens at birth by statute, “naturalized”, and in the last half of the 20th Century at that. I’ve already given the citation.
But, with one exception, no court has ruled that anyone other than a person born in the country to two citizen parents was eligible to the office of President. Not once.
So? no one is challenging that one becomes natural born by the circumstances of ones birth. Nor that one becomes a citizen by birth in the United States.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, quoting an older (even then) translation of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”,in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
The original French, which Marshall could probably read, was “Les Naturales ou Indigenes”, which translates properly (try each word on Bablefish),as “Naturals or natives”. Thus that early translation put “natives” in there twice and left out “naturals”, but then again, it was by an Englishman.
Would you say the same of Blackstone? He wasn't American either.
But I would say Vattel has more relevance than Blackstone. Vattel was much more often cited in early Supreme Court decisions. There are more references to Vattel, or "Law of Nations", in the papers of George Washington, than Blackstone. (8 references in 3 documents, verses 1 reference)
I don't know about you, or perhaps any of us after tonight, but I am not a feudal subject. My oath and allegiance is not to any person, such a King or Queen, but to the idea that is The United States, and more specifically to it's Constitution.