Vattel’s definition refers to “natives”, not native-born. Native-born is indicative of country or place of birth, not citizenship. For example: one born in the US to parents who are British and not US citizens would not be considered British native-born but could be considered US native-born, and would be a British citizen at birth, not a US citizen.
In other words, to be considered a native or natural-born citizen of a country, the birth parents must be citizens of that place or country in which the birth takes place.
Vattel then clarifies how citizenship of a child is determined (if not a native, or natural-born citizen) with further reasoning:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” This is especially important when the mother is a citizen of a different country than the father.
However, your point, that in cases where the father is truly unknown then citizenship would necessarily follow the mother, is valid. In this case, a claim of natural-born citizen would be difficult to prove or disprove if BHO was actually born in Hawaii (using the accepted definition from Vattel).
OTOH, if the father is known but not legally married to the mother (for example, being listed as such on the birth certificate), then citizenship would follow the father. The citizenship status might be contested judicially in this case, and/or dual citizenship might be determined or granted, but no valid claim of natural-born citizen could be made.
[Side note: please use hyphens when discussing “native-born” and “natural-born”. I believe this to be the more correct way to properly refer to these issues.]
English and grammer were my worst subjects.
natural-born vs. natural born
How does the hyphen impact the meaning of the word group?
The constitution uses natural born Citizen
Vattel is giving his opinion which certainly has a great deal of authority for the Founders. However, it still is only that and is not part of the Constitution. And the way he gives his opinion seems to suggest that there are other legitimate views.
Given that Blacks’s does not give a definition of “native born” just “native” leads me to the conclusion that the concept “native born” is not different, in point of law, from natural born as has been applied in US law.
This is even worse than expected for being in a murky realm of the law. I just checked Black’s definition of “citizen” under American law and did not find the term “native-born” or “natural-born”. Only the terms “naturalized” or “born” which also substantiates my conclusion that there is no significant difference between “born in” and “natural-born”. Certainly as applies to the qualifications for the presidency it has never been before a court.
There is also no doubt that the determination of a child’s citizenship through the father has no validity under today’s law.
This is a fascitating line of conversation from many perspectives and shows a great deal of light on social relations among other issues.