A swath of text from a 2010 University of Virginia Law Review:A. Rights of Recognized Sovereigns Under the Law of Nations
To understand the law of nations background against which the Constitution was adopted, one must begin with the writings of the eighteenth-century Swiss philosopher, Emmerich de Vattel.
Your quoted content from the deliberately uncited and unlinked Law Review article has to do with the Law of Nations which is just an outdated term for INTERNATIONAL LAW.
International Law has no place in the discussion of United States domestic determinations of citizenship of children born within the United States or any other nation. International law ony applies where one nation does not enjoy exclusive jurisdiction, such as certain cases on the high seas.
The United States does not care whether any other nation does, or does not, extend their citizenship to a natural born United States citizen.
If claimable second citizenship disqualified a President, Putin and Russia could confer Russian citizenship on Donald Trump and Mike Pence tomorrow and make Nancy Pelosi the President.
As for your secret unlinked, uncited Law Review article:
https://virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/729.pdf
The Law of Nations as Constitutional Law, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 4, June 2012, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.and Bradford R. Clark, pp. 729-838, your excerpt taken from page 749.
The Law of Nations, now called International Law, was mentioned once in the Constitution, at Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 10, stating that Congress shall have the Power:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.
The United States grant of natural-born citizen status to children born within the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is not a piracy or felony committed on the high seas, nor is it any offense against the Law of Nations or International Law as that is known today.
At page 734 the authors assert:
These understandings of Articles I and II, we contend, more effectively explain Supreme Court decisions involving the law of nations in U.S. courts than alternative arguments about whether fed-eral courts have Article III power to treat customary international law as federal common law.
As stated by the United States Supreme Court, there is no general federal common law. Common law courts are not created by statute law. All United States courts are created by statute law. The United States has precisely zero common law courts.
No general common law arises from the States as there are 49 different common law systems, and the common law arising in each commmon law State is different. And then there is Louisiana which retains their French colonial heritage with the Napoleanic Code system of law. The Code system does not rely upon precedents as does the Common Law system.
As the Supreme Court has found, the Constitution cannot be read without reference to the common law, as it is written in the language of the common law.
More on point to the topic being discussed was an article in another, and more recent, law review article expressly on the topic of Natural Born Citizen.
The author correctly notes, for example, "The 1790 statute explicitly used the words "natural born citizens" to designate this category of extraterritorially born citizens."
The United States, and the United States alone, determines who are its citizens, born or naturalized, whether they are born in the United States, or born in a foreign country.
Apparently you do not like United States law, and your chosen method of changing it is by judicial activism, rather than by changing the law.
United States law is clear, 66 Stat. 235, Public Law 414, June 27, 1952
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 300
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY8 FAM 301
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP8 FAM 301.1
(U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)
(Office of Origin: CA/PPT/S/A)* FAM 301.1-1 (U) INTRODUCTION
(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018). . .
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
If you would like to CHANGE the law, by all means advocate for CHANGING the law. Depending on what you want to change it to, I might join that effort. However, I will not join an effort to make believe that the law is not what it says.
“International law ony applies where one nation does not enjoy exclusive jurisdiction...”
Such as, when two sovereigns reasonably claim jurisdiction over the same person, simultaneously demanding performance of the same duties that full-fledged citizens alone is obliged to discharge?
“If claimable second citizenship disqualified a President, Putin and Russia could confer Russian citizenship on Donald Trump and Mike Pence tomorrow and make Nancy Pelosi the President.”
This is why I’ve always said that dual citizenship can’t, strictly speaking, be deemed a categorical disqualification when it comes to the U.S. presidency. At some times and places, certain countries have made known their willingness to grant citizenship on request to certain people whose grandparents were citizens of that country. What’s to stop such countries from attempting to repopulate themselves with a mass naturalization statute that includes such a low qualification standard so that such people don’t even have to apply for such citizenship, but are instead granted it automatically, and notified via a mass global mailing? In that case, many NBCs even under my strict definition would surely be ensnared by a dual-citizen POTUS disqualifier. But that would really not be necessary to worry about if the U.S. were to maturely confine its NBC claims to citizens who meet the relatively narrow NBC definition originally laid out in Minor v. Happersett. In any given Sovereign v. Sovereign dispute in which simultaneous claims of jurisdiction are being lodged with respect to the same person, the U.S. literally can never lose if the person in question meets the strict standard of Minor v. Happersett. The overall presumption of loyalty in favor of the U.S. in such cases would never fail to overwhelm the contesting foreign power. Moreover, the U.S. should always strive to maximize the fractional size of that cohort of its citizens (I think it is currently estimated to be about 70% of the population). How better to encourage the overall fidelity and patriotism of the population, whether for generally dissuading other countries from making the effort in times of peace to try to gain a foothold in our governing apparatus, or specifically during periods of international conflict or global upheaval, for making a foreign power think once, twice, three times before acting on a plan for invading the U.S.?