Yet that definition is not code, nor has it ever existed as the US legal definition of natural born citizen.
It requires someone to be born in the U.S.A. of U.S. citizen parents.
This definition, sure. By English Common Law (which is also a foundation and source for the legal system of the US - it's not just Vattel as is often claimed here), jus soli is sufficient.
The issue is not what is a potential definition of a natural born citizen; the issue is what is the legal definition within the US. Note that in United States v. Wong Kim Ark the majority position of the Supreme Court held that English Common Law held sway, and thus jus soli is the law of the land.
It's also interesting to note that the dissent in the Ark case proffered Vattel's position as the proper position; however, since that was the minority it has no legal bearing or force and is secondary to the majority position, jus soli - natural born citizen by virtue of birth on US soil.
I'm sure I'll have dozens jump in here and tell me I'm wrong and don't understand, that I'm an idiot or Obamabot. Happened many times in the past. Of course, not a single one can tell me why the minority position of Ark is definitely the proper position, when it was rejected by the majority of the Supreme Court in the decision of just what is a natural born citizen. Lots of dancing and links, but no one is able to get around this very simple fact: in the case dealing with the birth on US soil of a child of foreign parents, the Supreme Court ruled - and has upheld in subsequent cases - that jus soli is the law of the land when it comes to Natural Born Citizenship.
I don't think so Obot. You are quite wrong on both accounts.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342214/Ramsay-Natural-Born-Citizen-1789
I do not mind people posting their OPINIONS on this - but DO NOT state that the legal definition of "natural born citizen" is via JUS SOLI alone. The ARK decision DID NOT settle that question. It DID affirm that ARK was a CITIZEN, however.
From the declaratory paragraph of the decision:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the SINGLE QUESTION STATED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS OPINION, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, BECOMES AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The QUESTION posed at the beginning of the decision:
The QUESTION presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States BY VIRTUE OF THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.