You think you know something about this subject? Then I reiterate the dummass comment.
The whole point about the US conception of a Natural Born Citizen derives from Vattel and not from Blackstone. That's the first point.
The second point is that Canada, unlike the United States, has no law that requires mental contortions and gymnastics to understand. You read the statute and you know the law. When Canadians use the term "natural born citizen" it is entirely congruent with "citizen by birth" because they define it that way BY STATUTE.
As we ought to do. That was, is and remains my point.And to make my point I don't need to equivocate, as you do.
Since we aren't Canada, the similarities are irrelevant
As you said, we use Vattel, and as I posted to you here -
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Notice that, unlike Blackstone, Vattel does not refer to children born outside the country as *natural born citizens*, just..... citizens.