No she isn't, and i've researched this issue far more than most people have.
We have all been misled by William Rawle when he wrote his book "A view of the Constitution" in which he said that "natural born citizen" comes from English common law.
This book was enormously popular, and spread this false claim all across the early legal practitioners of the era.
The trouble is, it was not true, as the Pennsylvania Supreme court had made clear to him on more than one occasion.
Rawle was deliberately lying, and he *KNEW* he was deliberately lying. He was trying to make the argument that slaves were citizens too, and therefore could not be slaves, and so he misled everyone in an effort to free the slaves through the back door of citizenship law.
He had been trying this tactic since the 1790, and the courts kept rejecting him.
His efforts to free the slaves has only caused the rest of the nation to be confused about what the framers intended in 1787 when they insisted on "natural born citizen."
No. The English law didn't make one a citizen, hence the slaves were not citizens, but the children of citizens were.
And this is also why they adopted the 14th amendment. It was the only way to bestow citizenship on the slaves because they could never inherit it from being born here.
I could go into far more detail about what happened and why, but suffice it to say we've all been misled and lied to about what really happened in this era.
Second, it is irrelevant. What the law is today is what matters, not a historical argument rendered moot by the passage of time and changes in law.