No, you’re just wrong. part 1401 does refer specifically to persons born in the U.S.
This has been hashed out dozens of times here in the past. part 1401 refers to persons born in the U.S., but it makes no mention anywhere in the entire document about the term or meaning of the term “natural born citizen”. “Natural Born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States was clearly refering to a person born within the boarders of the United States with two citizen parents. Don’t feel bad you are not the only one who remains confused on this issue. I challenge you to search for the term “natural born” anywhere in the “United States Code”. Then report back here with your findings.
Oh, I know it’s been hashed and rehashed, and no, I’m not ignorant of all the echo-chamber discussion. I’ve been following these threads for years hoping that there might be some nugget of actual evidence show up. I was at first intrigued by the reports that Obama might not be eligible. But time after time, it’s just been shown to be a dry well.
The so-called “birthers” have wanted so badly to see a clear constitutional basis for their claims that they’re starting to see things that simply aren’t there.
It does not require two citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen”. It sounds good, but it never has been true. Wishing it so doesn’t make it so. Don’t bother rehasing Vattel. Vattel isn’t law, and it isn’t the way the constitution has been interpreted.
There are only two ways to be a citizen: either by birth or by naturalization. A citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen”. That’s all there is.