No, it's not evident at all. Consider that Chief Justice Waite wrote that, "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,..." If that's not English common law, then what is it? American common law? Is there a Court case between 1783 and 1788 which put us on a path separate from the English common law definition of "natural-born subject"? There would have to be for you to argue that the "common law" Chief Justice Waite referred to was ours, not England's.
Your argument fails on this point. Perhaps you meant to refer to the cite of Minor from Horace Gray's ponderously improbable and wholly unnecessary tour of western civilization known as Wong Kim Ark.
You mean the same Wong Kim Ark where five other Justices joined Justice Gray in the Court's opinion? That Wong Kim Ark?
Your reply demonstrates that when faced with Wong Kim Ark, all you can say is that Justice Gray (and the five Justices who joined his opinion) are wrong. You're well within your right to say that, but it doesn't change that Wong Kim Ark is the law of the land and has never been overruled. Nor does it change that Judges have cited Wong Kim Ark to conclude that "persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural [*29] born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."" (Source).
None of you misunderstands de Vattel. But de Vattel's definition of "les naturels" was quite different from English common law's definition of "natural-born subject," and de Vattel himself never used the phrase "natural-born citizen"; that's one way of translating "les naturels." If the Founders had wanted to signal that they were following de Vattel instead of English common law, they would've emphasized it in the Constitution. They did not. The phrase is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has referenced common law, not de Vattel, to define it.