Now that's really stretching far beyond sanity. Vattel is not "common law". I've given you several quotes from WKA, and could find many from other cases which cite English Common law. Can you find any calling Vattel "common law"?
These sentences reinforce my point. The first class has no doubts BECAUSE they are natural born citizens. The second class has doubts about their citizenship because they are NOT born to citizen parents and DO NOT MEET the definition of natural born citizen. Are you intentionally shooting your own argument in the foot???
He never said they do not meet the definition. Read it again - he said there were doubts, and those doubts would not be addressed in Minor v. Happersett. Doubt = "not sure" = no definitive definition. How many definitive judicial pronouncements are framed as "there are doubts and we're not going to resolve the issue in this case?"
Sorry, but the SCOTUS said otherwise. Here's the quote AGAIN.
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] 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.
The court says "At common law" but the definition of NBC, as I have shown, is a verbatim match of Vattel. The Minor decision says NOTHING else about common law NOR does it ever specifically cite English common law. The definition may be "in light of" common law, but again, it matches Vattel's definition nearly word for word. No OTHER citation of English common law in the Wong Kim Ark decision specifically uses the term natural-born citizen. Three citations of NBC are pulled from the Constitution. Two are from the Minor decision, with the verbatim definition matching Vattel. One is from the Naturalization Act of 1790. None are from English common law.
He never said they do not meet the definition.
He said the second class were those persons recognized as citizens without regard to the citizenship of the parents. This is a basic point of logic. If the parents are citizens, they meet the definition. If the parents aren't citizens, they don't meet the definition of NBC and fall within the first class of citizens for whom there is NO DOUBT about their citizenship. This second class Waite says is included as citizens. He does not say they are included as or are even potentially considered to be "natural-born citizens. The doubt is specifically due to the second class not having citizen parents ... hence they do NOT meet the definition. Otherwise, there's no point in referring to this as a second class.