I have already explained to you that it was only the father that mattered, and I have given you an example (the naturalization acts of the 1790s) which illustrate that *ONLY* the father mattered regarding citizenship.
You have previously explained your insanity. What you do not explain is how your insanity takes precedent over the 14th amendment of the Constitution or the Supreme Court precedents, beginning with Wong Kim Ark.
Just because you have your personal opinion, supported only by your own insanity, does not convert your irrational claims into law.
Were anything prior to 14A to be in conflict with 14A in any way, it is overridden by 14A. No statute will ever override a constitutional provision. The more recent Supreme Court holding sets precedent over older inconsistent Supreme Court holdings. A Supreme Court interpretation of a constitutional provision can only be overridden by another Supreme Court holding, or by a constitutional amendment.
Attributing irrational, insane claims to real legislation does not create birther law.
Vattel is irrelevant to United States citizenship law.
Yes I have. This is another example where I get the impression you either aren't reading, or aren't understanding what I have said to you.
A naturalization amendment designed for the purpose of giving slaves citizenship, is *NOT* a repeal of "natural born citizen." The two things are not even slightly related.
The only understanding of "natural born citizen" that anyone should concern themselves with is that of the founding era. What happened 81 years later is irrelevant to what was meant in 1787.