Not only do I fail to see why a treatise on **international law** would have any bearing on a nation's own standards for determining citizenship, your citation of the Venus case is malapropos: no question of birthright citizenship was under discussion or investigation. All of the citations of Vattel were in service for determining a dispute regarding property rights, forfeiture, and restitution in a case where seizure of ships on the high seas was involved...in other words, a case wherein the Law of Nations actually comes into play, because it involved a dispute between two or more nations! (It should also go without saying that Vattel's definition is tied to the civil law system of the European continent; it has no bearing on the English common law, which the American system of law is derived from.)
Emer de Vattel was dead and buried before the Declaration of Independence, much less the Constitution. A book on international law has no controlling interest on the domestic laws of a nation, especially when you have over two centuries of Federal and State court decisions to work with.
So you can stow away your "Euler Logic Diagram", because it invokes a category error: the second circle relies on actual United States statute, whereas the third and inmost circle relies on a definition provided by a Swiss civil law specialist in a book focusing on international law. Why should Vattel take precedence over the overwhelming extant evidence favoring the common law notions of "jus soli", insofar as America is concerned?
‘k scholar, WHY was the term ‘natural born Citizen’ inserted as a qualification if there was no distinction in the Founders minds between nbC and just anyone born here ?
Your ‘arguments’ employing years of subsequent legal mumbo-jumbo regarding nbC are similar to those attempting to accrue legitimacy to the question of ‘what is a woman’.
-fJRoberts