“As I told you before, natural born British Subjects are is governed by statute, or laws of man, or “regulations”, and it is NOT the same as being natural born citizen.
No, they are NBS by common law, not statue, and the US followed England.
The US Constitution is unambiguous - we are citizens by birth, something Vattel calls naturalization - but again, US law does NOT call that naturalization. Naturalization is what is done for someone born elsewhere, and falls under Congress, not the Constitution.
No one born in the US is considered a naturalized citizen under US law. Again, neither the US Constitution nor US public law follows Vattel on citizenship. We expressly REJECTED his notion of citizenship following parentage, and say that the child of a Mexican, born in the US in amity with the government, is a US citizen.
No, the NBS may be common law to England but it is NOT natural or common to the United States.
The US Constitution is unambiguous - we are citizens by birth, something Vattel calls naturalization - but again, US law does NOT call that naturalization. Naturalization is what is done for someone born elsewhere, and falls under Congress, not the Constitution.
That's what I meant as being "unambiguous."...that the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution is a direct reference to natural law, and the Brit empire law(s) of Natural Born Subjects are man-made statute(s) that was made to controlled conquered lands occupied by indigenous populations. It's made up and not natural. You didn't comprehend again. Naturalization is a process to make people citizens by law as de Vattel clearly states.