Notwithstanding the commentary of Samuel Roberts vis-a-vis Vattel, "it is the right of every nation to determine by what means any one shall become entitled to the quality of a citizen, or to admission into the body of the political society."
Following the 14th Amendment, and subsequent political legislation to that effect: those born within the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens from the moment of their birth, and hence natural born.
That is absolutely incorrect. The 14th did not change the meaning of "natural born."
If you go look at the debates on the 14th amendment, you quickly learn that congress regarded the entire thing as a blanket naturalization law. They even say so.
The 14th amendment is one big naturalization law for slaves. It's only effect is naturalization because under the concept of "natural law", which was a big thing in the later half of the 17th century, laws must reflect God's design.
You cannot make natural by statute that which is not already natural.
Anyone deriving their citizenship exclusively from the 14th amendment, is *NOT* a "natural born citizen."
And it wasn't Samuel Roberts. His book is based on the entire works of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the several living members of it did not contradict him after his book was published.
Now I ask you, who better than the legal community of Philadelphia would know what was the Framers intent in 1787, where all the legal minds were gathered to discuss the US Constitution? Opinions from Boston or Richmond are less certain than what comes from the very place where the document was debated.
Samuel Roberts was trained by William Lewis, who was part of the Ratifying body in Pennsylvania. Many of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania court of errors and appeals) also had connections to the process.
William Lewis was William Rawle's co-counsel in Negress Flora vs Joseph Grainsberry, where Rawle tried to float his English common law theory, and was shot down unanimously.