In 2004 in Sosa v. Alverez-Machain the Supreme Court recognized that there were areas of overlap between common law and the law of nations and held that in those areas one looks particularly to Vattel as authority. Justice Story's opinion in Shanks v. Dupont makes clear that citizenship is such an area as does Marshall's opinon in The Venus which specifically quotes the language of Vattel in question.
Moreover, contrary to your earlier post, Waite, in Minor v. Happersett specifically says that it is doubtful at common law if the Article II phrase goes beyond meaning born in the oountry of parents both of whom are citizens. Further, it is clear at the time of the Framers that patrimony was the most important component of lineage however politically incorrect that may be now.
In addition it is quite clear that the meaning of the Article II phrase was not before the court in Wong Kim Ark. It was not among the questions presented and is never mentioned in the briefing. And Gray engaged in the generalities tha he did because he was trying to protect Arthur, who had appointed him. He was in the position of Sotomayor and Kagan today. Arthur was under pressure in several political quarters because his father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born and, like Obama, he was fighting to suppress the issue.
Here is an index to references to Vattel during the Framers' debates: http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003452%29%29 They seem to refute your contentions.
Direct Quote: "...isn't it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?"
I don't think Justice Scalia was talking about "a child born here." He was talking about an "Englishm[a]n who had come here...and then went back." Doesn't seem like this Englishman was BORN HERE if came here and then went "back" (to England). I distorted no plain meaning; I believe you simply misread it.
And Gray engaged in the generalities tha he did because he was trying to protect Arthur, who had appointed him
President Arthur died in 1886. Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898. You're saying that Justice Gray was trying to protect a President who had been dead for twelve years? Even if that were true, how do you explain that five Justices joined Justice Gray's opinion? President Benjamin Harrison appointed Justices Brewer, Brown, and Shiras; and President Cleveland appointed Justices White and Wheeler.
It remains that Justice Gray's "generalities" are part of case law, and Wong Kim Ark has never been overruled. As I mentioned, Judges from lower courts have cited Justice Gray's analysis 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."" (FYI: Judge Brown wrote that opinion, and she was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels. Yes, the same Governor Daniels who yesterday stripped Planned Parenthood of its government funding. So I hope you don't think Judge Brown wrote the opinion to "protect" anyone!)