“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
Lynch v Clarke, 1844
US law has never followed Vattel on citizenship, nor would Vattel have expected it to. Vattel wrote on international law, and made the point that what he was writing didn’t hold true in 1758 England.
As others have already observed, you are taking the subject matter and many of the quotations out of context and reversing their meaning. For example, Vattel was making the point that England had acquired the habit of claiming the children born to alien parents in England as natural born English citizens, and such a practice was contrary to previous international custom and law by denying the millenia old right of a person to expatriate and naturalize as a citizen owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign.
The brand new Republic of the United States of America chose to adopt many selected principles of law contrary to English/British precedents and consistent with international practices. The right to emigrate and naturalize was one of these legal principles, and we declared war upon the United Kingdom of great Britain in substantial part to defend the right against Britain's forceful violations of it on the High Seas by impressment of our seamen and seizure of our ships and cargoes.
When you see some judiciary and individuals claiming the United States Government continued and/or adopted English Common Law as U.S. common law, you know you are dealing with erroneous and invalid arguments. The United States Government never adopted English Common Law. The United States developed its own common law and its own statutory laws using its own reasoning of natural law and sometimes by reference to international custom, Continental law, and English law.
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance.”
Using this logic, children born abroad to American citizens should not be considered American citizens, but citizens of the country they were born in and denied entrance to the U.S. when the parents want to return home to raise their foreign born offspring. Also any child born of foreign parents in the U.S. should not be permitted to leave the U.S. with their foreign citizen parents as child belongs to the birthplace not the parents. Such nonsense...