RIGHT, to be a “CITIZEN”. Natural born citizen, is another matter. About that YOU ARE WRONG! Original Intent AND the Supreme Court agree that to be an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Natural Born Citizen, you have to be born in the country AND BOTH parents had to be citizens. It couldn't be any clearer.
Did you not see the long article a few days ago?
According to the first naturalization law of 1790, while the founders were still extant and in service to this nation - the children of citizens born overseas were natural born and thus in no need of naturalization. How is that for original intent?
Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen” - but he figured the indigenous or native citizens should be those born of citizens and in country (with a few exceptions) - and all others would have to be naturalized.
In all cases one is either natural born or one must be naturalized.
According to our Constitution and U.S. law; one is either natural born or naturalized.
There is no third type of citizenship currently. There was, and it was those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of these were born as natural born subjects of England - and they did not have to be born in England of two citizen parents to be natural born subjects of England. They simply had to be born as subjects of England to be natural born subjects of England - and they were.