It's not the same thing. The Indiana judges have a major reading problem. You can't divine guidance on something that was never actually legally pronounced. Their argument is based on an ignorant assumption and circular logic.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
The court is showing utter stupidity. The basis of persons being born in the allegiance of the United States was through the parents adhering to the United States. If they were loyal to the crown, then by treaty, their children, even if born in the U.S., were British subjects. The same would apply under the Chinese treaty and Wong Kim Ark would be born a Chinese subject. The passage cited by the IAC was NOT Gray's controlling dicta. He relied on distinguishing NBC from "citizenship by birth" with the latter being dependent on pemanent domicil and residence in place of citizen parents. Wong Kim Ark was NOT a natural born citizen and persons such as him who are not born to citizen parents are NOT natural born citizens.
There's no question that Rubio comes CLOSER to being a natural born citizen than Obama because Rubios parents immigrated here. Obama's did not. Like it or not, however, natural law is still natural law and natural born citizen is only defined as those born in the country to citizen parents. Rubio might be a 14th amendment citizen (Obama clearly is not), but he is not a natural born citizen.
But isn't that EXACTLY what you Vattle Birthers do a lot of, whenever you are not just mis-reading stuff completely backwards??? You base your theory stuff on things the court never announced because I have seen you people saying, for example "Well, the court DIDN'T say he was a NBC, they said he was just a regular born citizen." Even though the court just said over and over the two were the same thing.
Then, you said:"The basis of persons being born in the allegiance of the United States was through the parents adhering to the United States. If they were loyal to the crown, then by treaty, their children, even if born in the U.S., were British subjects. The same would apply under the Chinese treaty and Wong Kim Ark would be born a Chinese subject."
??? Because the court people said Wong Kim Ark was a AMERICAN CITIZEN, and the whole point of what they were saying is AGAIN, ONE MORE TIME FOR YOU:
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, and 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.13
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Plus, now that conservatives (like Mark Levin) are getting mad at you Vattle Birthers about giving false and bad legal advice about Mark Rubio, it looks like you are trying to back pedal your way out. Oh, I bet there will be a lot of wiggling going on here. Maybe Vattel said something about people having their applications for citizenship in the mail or something???
Rather than go through all that stuff, why don't you just quit being a Vattle Birther???