That statement is a total and utter lie. Vattel makes no such assertion. Quite the contrary. I'm not going to keep posting the references over and over again, but the Trumpbot's continual posting of lies is getting tiresome. So stop parroting this crap and do the research. It's not rocket science.
I didn’t post the ‘two parents’ opinion, did I?
I quoted original intent — father rather than mother.
Vattel certainly does, unless you are one of those who claims that Vattel didn't use the exact phrase "natural born citizenship" in French, which is an argument put forward by an odious congressional report. It's a stupid argument since, by implication, it asserts that there is no difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Whether Vattel used phrases like "native" or "indigenous," he clearly was referring to something other than a regular "citizen."
Whatever the case, since even British law forbid Ted Cruz natural born status, it makes no difference what kind of noise is drawn against Vattel.
This is my research, seems pretty cut & dried
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise "the Law of Nations," written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.
In book one chapter 19 Section 212. Of the citizens and natives. "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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."