And that someone is you.
It's amusing how Birthers try to add the Plan B in: "The Framers didn't follow English law, they followed Vattel; and if they did follow English law, that was like Vattel anyway." Hey, even Vattel said the English follow a different rule. That should be a clue.
Again, here's what Coke earlier in the opinion said:
"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject[.]"
So a Frenchman coming into the King's realm, even for a stay of uncertain length, owes a temporary aligeance to the King "strong enough" that a child born in England during that stay would be a natural-born subject. And nothing here is said about renouncing allegiance to France for that to be so.
Is Coke contradicting himself later in the portion you highlight? No.
" albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other."
This is the key phrase to understand to what persons Coke has in view here. It's not that French guy. It's someone else.
Let's see if you can figure it out.
Which is exactly the problem.
You presume the conclusion by 'picking' your information out irregardless of the timing of when the information given.
-----
Is Coke contradicting himself later in the portion you highlight? No.
No, because what you cite is from a completely different type of allegiance, as one could see if you started just one sentence earlier in your quote -
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/911#lf0462-01_mnt018
3. Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part.
AND those weren't Coke's conclusions - he was quoting from a another case-
And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144.
Coke's work was written over ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS before Blackstone's Commentaries. When did the case Lord Coke cite take place?
-----
Nothing you posted contracts Cokes determination of natural born. In fact, he agrees with Wilson in his Lectures on Law....
It takes both blood AND soil to make a natural born citizen.