False, Vattel’s defintion is from continental Europe.
The American definition of Natural Born Citizen derives from the Common Law of England definition of Natural Born Subject which is part of the law of every state at the founding. At the founding, the term subject in the common law became citizen. A Natural Born Subject/Citizen is defines by Blackstone as:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.”
The 14th Amendment confirmed this in the Constitution.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-110/
No it doesn't. William Rawle worked diligently to infuse American legal thinking with that idea, but it isn't factually correct. He was successful and convincing a large number of people that it was, but it is factually wrong.
If we were to be following English Common Law, our "citizens" would be called "subjects", not "citizens."
Citizen, in the modern meaning of the word, does not come from England. It comes from Switzerland, as in the Swiss Republic.
All other nations in the world at that time used "Subject." Only Switzerland said "Citizen."
And what great author of natural law philosophy came from Switzerland? Well several in fact, but I am referring to Vattel.
A Natural Born Subject/Citizen is defines by Blackstone as:
Stop quoting *SUBJECT* and then trying to append "Citizen" onto the back of the definition for Subject. You are trying to deliberately mislead people.
A subject and a citizen are distinctly different. A subject owes perpetual allegiance to the king, and the very concept of renouncing your allegiance is regarded as treasonous.
A "Citizen" is a member of a Republic. Look up how "Citizens" have always been defined in Republics. You can go all the way back to Aristotle, and the definition has always been the same. "Citizens" come from Parents who are citizens. They don't come from being born on land the King owns.
Aristotle defined a citizen to be one who's parents are citizens. (Book III section II)
But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices....
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
George Washington relied on Vattel. He owned his book on citizenship.