The two are in no way related. It is akin to saying that if you are against abortion then you should also be against capital punishment.
However, he thereafter immediately said this: "Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion;"
Followed by: "...it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other..."
A bit out of the founding era, and in conflict with opinions stated by courts (The Supreme Court explicitly cites Vattel's definition of citizenship in the case of the Venus, 1814) and founders previous
But from a man who was considered the foremost Constitutional scholar of the times, and whose book was also quoted in numerous legal decisions and used to educate generations of lawyers. It isn't the idle musings of some crackpot.
And I would point out that nobody in the Venus case claimed to be a natural-born citizen. So any comments were made in dicta.
I cannot fathom how it can be obvious to you.
Or to Madison. Or Rawle. Or Kent.
The two are identical. Pro-lifers argue that a right to life is inherent. Birthers argue that citizenship is inherent. Abortion supporters argue that a baby does not have a right to life until born. Anti-Birthers argue that a baby is not a citizen until it is born.
As for your capitol punishment argument, people draw a distinction between innocent and guilty life. Most people (In America) base their morals on the bible, within which Capitol Punishment is accepted as a norm.
Followed by: "...it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other..."
Yes, that is your most important Madison "sound bite" which you feel the need to repeat continuously. If you will continue to read Madison's description of "place" you will find that it is not a simple transitory birth within American Borders, as you are arguing in favor of.
But from a man who was considered the foremost Constitutional scholar of the times, and whose book was also quoted in numerous legal decisions and used to educate generations of lawyers. It isn't the idle musings of some crackpot.
Whatever his vaunted status may be, a Chief Justice of the Supreme court's opinion trumps his.
And I would point out that nobody in the Venus case claimed to be a natural-born citizen. So any comments were made in dicta.
Obviously no one was running for President in this case either, but that is beside the point. The Chief Justice stated his opinion regarding what were the requirements of citizenship, and he did so by explicitly citing Vattel. What the case was regarding is irrelevant. What the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court believed were the requirements demonstrates what the Highest legal authority (which was nearly contemporaneous with the founders) regarded as the law governing citizenship. It can be therefore accepted that his was the majority opinion of the time. (as can indeed be demonstrated by the abundance of other quotes from people of that era.)
I have read a quote (i'll have to find it again) stating that during this period, British lawyers and British trained lawyers were constantly trying to re-introduce British Common law concepts into American law which had previously been expressly rejected. In some cases they were successful. I think most of the quotes from this era supporting the jus soli argument are the result of too many British trained legal people confusing the issue.