The argument that Vattel is the basis for the Article II definition is not a fringe theory. There is a large trail of documentation to indicate that it is quite a solid argument. It is only asserted to be "fringe" by those people who hate it's ramifications. Rather than do the research and refute it on the basis of documentation, people simply form up into group-think herds and then screech at their common Apostatic predators.
We’ve seen over and over that when you get answers, you simply rule them incorrect and continue.
That is a reasonable thing to do when they are in fact, Incorrect.
If you want the answer, you can simply go to /Black’s Law Dictionary/ and look it up. Don’t expect the real experts to devote their time to novices who think they know better.
And you folks keep trotting out Black's, (1891) and Blackstone, (British Law) and Wong Kim Ark,(Citizen, not "natural born citizen") and the 14th amendment,(Granting citizenship to former slaves) to prove what something written in 1787 was supposed to mean regarding Presidential eligibility. You Ignore the letter from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, which explicitly states the purpose of the resulting included article, (To bar foreign influence in the office of the Presidency) you ignore the fact that the founders rejected an alternative version of Article II, You ignore the fact that Vattel is specifically cited during the Constitutional convention, You Ignore the very intimate understanding of Vattel that the founders possessed, (and all evidence which demonstrates this intimacy) you Ignore Subsequent statements by contemporaneous Judges, Politicians, text books, and a whole host of historical documents, in truth, you are either not serious, or just plain dishonest. "Experts" will not make truth out of falsehood. They may tell you what the majority opinion is currently, but that does not make the majority opinion correct. We have only to look at the example of the last Presidential election to immediately realize the Majority made the stupidest choice humanly possible, and were therefore "incorrect."
When I was working on a template for an eligibility bill that would remedy the problems in our current system, one of the things I really wanted a bill to include was the opportunity for lay-people to submit input to the court, so that judges could NOT just ignore people like you who have done a lot of research and who have the actual evidence and references that DO reveal what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they penned the “natural born citizen” phrase in the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark’s references were all from either 150 years before the Constitution was ratified or 100 years after. The logic of “natural born” citizenship being conveyed only by the PLACE of birth was directly stated only in the Dred Scott decision and in the quote from a British law professor who based his statements on the British Nationality Act of 1870.