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
You say that as if you think it should hold some significance as to what is true or false. In my mind it does not. It's just an appeal to the fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam."
They are just a group that holds power and orders people to do what they say. I see this as distinctly different from being factually correct.
My thinking derives more from science than it does from legality. In science you can actually prove something, and people's opinions, even the opinions of great authorities don't mean anything. The truth does not emanate from opinion.
The Supreme Court has been wrong and reversed itself so many times, that anyone who merely accepts what they say "ex cathedra" is naive and foolish.
Plessey v Ferguson comes to mind, and Roe v Wade more recently.
That's why you cannot cite or quote actual laws or court opinions supporting your positions.
What 1790s era law supports the claim that "natural born citizens" are anyone born on us Soil?
And I already gave you a court opinion that shows Vattel was followed, not English common law.
For that matter, Calvin's case wasn't even unanimous.