Plus, did YOU read No. 214- -the part YOU chopped off the book at, before it got into ENGLAND and said:
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes [makes into a citizen]the children of a foreigner.
It sure is amazing how YOU leave off links and manage to stop quoting before you get to the part that contradicts you, isn't it???
Do you honestly believe there is any court today in this country that will cite the Vattel theory as an authority in defining natural born citizenship? You can’t even even cite a case in the past 100 years that uses Vattel to define nbc. It is obvious that the courts have relied on English common law rather than some 18th century Swiss philosopher when defining nbc. I suggest you acquaint yourself with SCOTUS cases such Wong Kim Ark or Rogers v. Bellei rather than Vattel if you are interested in the correct definition of nbc in USA jurisprudence. Until you become more aware of the correct legal definitions, you should refrain from posting wrong and misleading information