That is unfair, and you perceive incorrectly. I have had that exact argument on this very website more times than I can't count, and rehashing arguments that have been had many times in the past is not enjoyable. In fact, I'm pretty sure I already had that discussion with you here, or if not here, elsewhere.
To give you just a very short summary of one aspect of this, de Vattel's work covered a ton of topics, of which how citizenship is defined is only a tiny one. de Vattel's emphasis on jus sanguinas versus jus solis was one of the few where continental law differed from the English Common law. And as you know, English Common law was (and in some rare cases still is) the default rule in the U.S. unless specifically abrogated. It certainly was the law the Framers themselves actively practiced, and we use the common law all the time when interpreting the Constitution -- including the Second Amendment.
Therefore, I believe that tossing the common law jus solis out the window in favor of the continental variant of jus sanguinas isn't legally sound. The mere fact that some of the Framers found De Vattel useful or some purposes doesn't mean they adopted it wholesale. And whatever utility they found in de Vattel would have been dwarfed by Blackstone, with whom they all would have been even more familiar. And Blackstone's extensive writings on the common law adopted jus solis as the rule for citizenship.
I'm saying this not to restart an argument, but simply to show you that I have actually looked at this stuff in detail long ago. I've read all the counterarguments multiple times, and to me, this is by far the strongest. The reliance on de Vattel over Blackstone looks to me far more like confirmation bias than objective legal research.
Yes we have, and that's one of the reasons why I think you are tired of it.
And as you know, English Common law was (and in some rare cases still is) the default rule in the U.S. unless specifically abrogated.
It is now mostly due to the work of William Rawle. He appears to be ground zero for where this idea that citizenship came from the common law.
I have explored and discussed the reasons why he did this, but I don't think you want me to rehash them here.
It certainly was the law the Framers themselves actively practiced...
I can give you an example where this is not true. Specifically James Madison.
And whatever utility they found in de Vattel would have been dwarfed by Blackstone,
I have done word searches for the word "citizen" in the complete works of Blackstone, and what I found conformed to what I suspected.
In all usage of the word "citizen", Blackstone refers to members of a city. "City Denizen" is what he means. He does not use the word to refer to members of a nation. That is not his understanding of the word, nor was it the understanding of the word of anyone in the English sphere of influence until around the 1760s.
The modern usage of the word is not English, it is French, and specifically Swiss.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/citizen
The normally used English word to refer to the member of a nation was "subject." They didn't use the word "Citizen" in 1776.
So we have this word who's modern meaning specifically comes from 14th century Switzerland, and we substitute it for the commonly used, and common law based word of "subject."
Why make such a change, unless the intent was to change the understanding of the relationship between state and the individual?
I'm saying this not to restart an argument, but simply to show you that I have actually looked at this stuff in detail long ago.
Did you look at the etymology and history of the word "citizen"? I think the clue about where it came from is very significant.
The reliance on de Vattel over Blackstone looks to me far more like confirmation bias than objective legal research.
I think that without the advent of Vattel crossing the Atlantic, we never would have used the word "Citizen" at all. We would still be using the word "subject", because that was the English law norm in 1776.
It can't be a coincidence that we switched. That we somehow separated the meaning of the word "citizen" from it's origin.
Rawle is the guy who is most responsible for substituting the original meaning of the word "citizen" for the English common law meaning of "subject", and he did it for a very specific reason.
He had also been advised by higher legal authority that he was wrong on this, but he did it anyway.