LOL! How do you go about using what Tucker quotes another person as saying as to how the situation was prior to the existence of the State as being born 'in' a State prior to that State even existing? That's totally nonsensical.
Unless you're into picking cherries.
If you bother reading further down-
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people.
The federal government has the ability to make a uniform rule for naturalization ONLY
-----
Again, continuing FURTHER DOWN from your quote-
The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states. And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, .....
So, if the State governments have ONLY the authority to make denizens , and the federal government has ONLY the authority to make a rule for naturalization, WHO has the authority to determine who is or is not natural born?
The answer is........NEITHER!
ALL any governmental entity can do is acknowledge the definition that already exists.
just as Vattel said
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
just as the co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment said
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
Just as the definition entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866 said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
John A. Bingham
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
just as the decision of Wong Kim Ark said:
it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
There is only ONE WAY to acquire *natural-born citizenship*.
You must inherent it from your parents.
-----
Have a nice day.
The federal government has the ability to make a uniform rule for naturalization ONLY.
I certainly agree that Congress did not have the power to define the status of those born citizens in the United States.
Note what Tucker says: This was the legal state of the subject in Virginia when the Constitution was adopted.
The United States already existed at that time. It existed after 1776 and before 1787.
And the situation in Virginia was the exact same as the situation in ALL the States. Natural born citizens were determined by the common law rule that had ALWAYS been in force.
The Constitution did not change that rule, and it didn't give Congress the power to change it.
So the same rule applied before the Constitution, and it applies now.
just as Vattel said The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Except he DIDN'T say that. he never mentioned natural born citizens at all. That was a mistranslation 10 years after the Constitution was written.
Even if he had, he was speaking for himself and Switzerland, NOT england and the US.