Yes. Pennsylvania made it very clear that we don't follow English common law regarding citizenship. As I pointed out before, Pennsylvania hosted the Constitutional convention, and there is no better source for what was the intent of "natural born citizen" than the legal authorities of Pennsylvania from that era.
They spell it out plainly that Vattel is the source for "citizen". You've got Rawle, and perhaps Madison if you overlook his double talking on the topic.
Who else you got?
Yes. Pennsylvania made it very clear that we don't follow English common law regarding citizenship. As I pointed out before, Pennsylvania hosted the Constitutional convention, and there is no better source for what was the intent of "natural born citizen" than the legal authorities of Pennsylvania from that era.
Your imaginary garbage lies directly contrary to a precedential holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. Your fantasies on law are based on nothing more than the fantasies infecting your mind. That's why you cannot cite or quote actual laws or court opinions supporting your positions.
Nonsense, vomited up with great conviction, remains nonsense.
As for acquisition of United States citizenship, the leading precedential case is Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Opinion of the Court excerpted below for your education.
[654] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."[654] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.
[655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 88 U. S. 167.
[657] "'British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance to the Crown. 'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality."
[658] It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
[660] "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
[661] As that statute included persons born "within any of the King's realms or dominions," it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there.
[662] Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 31 U. S. 112, 31 U. S. 113, 31 U. S. 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a
“Who else you got?”
In chronological order:
1777
George Washington
Requiring that only “natives” make up his personal guards.
1785
Maryland and Massachusetts legislatures naturalizing foreigners with the rights of natural born citizens.
1785/1786
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson drafting a treaty of commerce with the term “natural born citizens of the United States”.
1787
Framers debating if only “natives” should be allowed as members of Congress. James Wilson opposes the requirement since he and other Framers are not natives (BTW, the grandfather clause avoided this problem).
1788
James Iredell
President must be a native.
1788
Thomas Jefferson to John Jay
“Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are preferable to Aliens, and to citizens alien-born.”
1789
James Madison
Place of birth is the most certain criteria for allegiance.
“all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, [are] citizens of the United States”
1795
Congressman Zephaniah Swift
The children of aliens born in Connecticut are natural born subjects.
1795
Congressman James Hillhouse
Aliens can come to the United States refuse to be naturalized and their children would be natural born citizens.
1799
George Nicholas
Poor to the Constitution the people of the states consisted of either natural born citizens (born in the state) or aliens (born outside the state).
1825
William Rawle
1826
James Kent
“As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States”
1830
Supreme Court Justice William Johnson
Shanks became a natural born citizen of South Carolina on July 4th, 1776
None of these individuals from the Founding period use the terms “natives, or natural born” in a way that could be based on Vattel’s two citizen parents definition. But in a way which could be based on Blackstone’s definition of natives or natural born.