Replies

My only comment is that Vattel makes the point that ALL citizenship flows “from the allegiance and citizenship of the parents.”

He didn't say that about "ALL" citizenship. He said citizenship was necessary to perpetuate a civil society and that it needed to be accomplished through the children of citizens, specifically that children naturally follow the condition of the father (which was stated by the Supreme Court in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor - but ignored by Gray in WKA).

Vattel clearly says "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ..." meaning this is his opinion. This certainly is not a comprehensivie statement about ALL citizenship.

Further, Vattel acknowledges that there are LAWS that oversee the regulation of citizenship in some countries:

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.

Vattel again, puts his commentary in perspective as his personal observation:

... I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise ...

Vattel specifically cites England as a country that "naturalizes" children born of foreigners at birth:

Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

The parents only count if the birth is outside the USA, so the Founders were NOT following Vattel.

Not exactly. Vattel said the laws of other countries must be followed. Your example, however, does mean the Founders were NOT inherently following English common law as described by Blackstone.

... all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception ...

The founders had to enact a section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to do something similar, obviously because this was not universally accepted under the country's common law. You've just destroyed your own arguments yet again. Brilliant, Rogers, brilliant.