Vattel said citizenship of the child naturally follows the citizenship of the father. The traits of citizenship at birth naturally follow the father. Just like a natural born athlete or natural born musician (or in Obama’s case, a natural born liar). The Supreme Court called this definition common law, although it was nearly and clearly a direct quote from Vattel. And though originally cited by Minor, it was quoted and never disputed nor redefined in WKA.
Vattel discussed European law. The Supreme Court used common law in determining the meaning of NBC, and did so at great length in WKA. Your refusal to face reality - the WKA decision and its long discussion of NBC, are why you lose every time. Someone who denies reality is a nutjob.
However, I’ve quoted WKA at great length to you, and you shut your eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist, so go on living in your fantasy. But fantasies will not help Lakin...
Vattel did not say that about England, he said it about other European countries that had different practices.
"The Supreme Court called this definition common law, although it was nearly and clearly a direct quote from Vattel."
No, the court has not called what you claim as Vattel's definition is common law. Quite the contrary. The court very carefully and clearly explains that the common law only required birth on the soil.
"And though originally cited by Minor, it was quoted and never disputed nor redefined in WKA."
Aside from the pesky little fact that the finding of WKA is in contradiction to your claim.
I know you have trouble understanding it, but any rational person reading the very long dissertation in WKA cannot come away from it without understanding that its says birth on the soil is enough.