Persons born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States may be aliens or citizens at birth. Their eligibility for United States citizenship at birth is determined by the applicable United States statute law at the time of their birth. The currect applicable law is the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, as amended.
De Vattel wrote a book entitled The Law of Nations. De Vattel died before the colonies declared independence. Unsurprisingly, his book was about the law of nations. That is the archaic term for International Law. United States citizenship is a purely domestic concern and International Law has no applicability whatever.
The citizenship law of the United States, before and after independence, followed English common law. All 13 original states adopted the English common law so far as it did not conflict with the Constitution. Each did so explicitly either in their state constitution or in their state statute law. The children of persons born in the United States have always been considered United States citizens at birth, including the children of aliens, with the exception of those born to a parent holding immunity from United States laws, such as accredited diplomats or visiting royalty.
The people did not adopt a letter by John Jay to David Brearly of August 29, 1787. In addition, the people did not adopt the previous letter from John Jay to George Washington of July 25, 1787 which referred to "natural born Citizen." Emphasis on the word "born" by John Jay as in the original handwritten document.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw4.097_0189_0190/
A natural born citizen is one who acquired United States citizenship at birth due to the circumstances of his birth, in accordance with United States law. The 14th Amendment controls citizenship at birth of all born within the territory of the United States. Federal statute law controls the citizenship at birth of all those born outside the territory of the United States.
International law pertains to disputes between two or more nations. As citizenship determinations are strictly a domestic affair, international law does not determine the citizenship of anyone, anywhere.
In the case of Minor v. Happersett, there was no question of citizenship before the Court, and the Court decided no issue of citizenship. The Transcript of Record at 8-9 contains an agreed statement of facts by the parties which states in relevant part, "It is admitted by the pleadings that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form, made application to him to be registered, and that thje defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female, (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated.)
Any claim that the Court decided anything about citizenship has no merit.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S 167-68:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
In dictum, the Chief Justice (not the Court) observed that some authorities had doubts about citizenship without reference to parents, but noted that for purposes of the case in Minor in was not necessary to resolve those doubts. The issue was not argued before the Court and was not decided by the Court in Minor.
The issue was decided in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898):
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
A natural born citizen, to use Jay's emphasis, is one who is born a citizen, as opposed to one who is born an alien and later naturalized.
Prior to independence, the colonists were natural born subjects of the king pursuant to English common law. After independence they ceased to be subjects and became citizens. The term from English common law was adapted to be natural born citizen. As noted by the Court in Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 654, "The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."
You're happy to use the strength of John Jay's words when he affirms a point you wish to make, but you tell us Jay's words about a natural born citizen needing to have citizen parents--which disagrees with your point--should be disregarded.
That seems rather opportunistic and lacking logic.
Barry himself, White House Counsel Bob Bauer, then-US Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan, HDOH Registrar Alvin Onaka, HDOH Director "Loretta Fuddy" and her Deputy Director Keith Yamamoto (among others), arguably and on the basis of many facts, all must have known that Barry's LFBC was invalid if not--and far more likely--fraudulent and forged, despite the way it was characterized to the public.
The CIA higher-ups knew, for example, that what the guy below claims, is the verified truth:
(Through the Fuddy Hoax of 12/11/2013, "Fuddy's" Estate and her Deputy Yamamoto were compensated through a fraudulent legal settlements of two lawsuits, against a foreign aircraft engine manufacturer, with very substantial sums.)
These government officials were lying to affect the 2012 Presidential election. Thus, this was election fraud, a coup to prevent the US Government reins from passing to the Vice President, then very likely, another candidate in the 2012 election. Truly, if it were known that no official and valid document existed showing Barry's eligibility to be president, a large slice of the likely voters would have abandoned voting for Barry. All that occurred before Barry signed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which began allowing the media and government agencies to propagandize the American public. How coincidental and convenient, especially given Benghazi and the Fuddy Hoax events!
It has in no way validly been established that Stanley Ann Dunham and/or Barack Obama, Sr. were Barry's biological parents. That invalid LFBC was, we may assume, the "best the CIA could produce" on Barry's behalf, yet it is filled with several indicia of invalidity and criminality. That document cannot be relied upon, even for establishing where Barry was truly born. Nonetheless, those officials were satisfied to thrust that LFBC forward as if it were completely valid.
IMHO, Barry is mightily responsible for bringing in the infiltration of a great deal of foreign influence into the US government, which was greatly responsible for the Presidential election coup of 2020.
Too many have gone.