“You are incorrect”
No, he’s not. Everyone knows the Wong Kim Ark decision was about citizenship at birth, not specifically presidential eligibility. But since there is nothing in the law or common sense that says to be a natural born citizen means anything but to be a citizen by right of birth, it follows that Wong Kim Ark solidified a reading of the 14th amendment whereby children born on U.S. territory are natural born citizens.
The problem with looking to people like Vattel is that he says things like the following, which is completely at odds with U.S. law at least since the passage of the 14th amendment:
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Except we all know very well that children born in the U.S., and under it’s jurisdiction, are natives and are citizens. It is their country, too. It’s not just that to Vattel only the children of citizens are natural born citizens. It is that only the children of citizens are citizens. This is not our system.
It isn't a matter of losing NBC it is a matter that it never existed.
The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
You can't have it both ways, claim that court cases say something when they don't.
It is clear that Wong Kim Ark did not fully address NBC status and equally clear that Minor v. Happersett did NOT endorse the common idea that the 14th meant place of birth on US soil automaticlly conferred NBC status.
Natural Born Citizen, Native Born Citizen, and Naturalized.
One can be born a citizen but not a Natural Born citizen.
Then also one can become a citizen via a statutory process.
That much is clear.
Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. No legal or Constitutional scholar believes such is the case. There is no settled law on the definition of natural-born citizen. To imply that the law is settled is either intentionally misleading or ignorant.
Justice Gray, in the majority opinion on Wong Kim Ark, quoted a previous Supreme Court decision on Minor v. Happersett.
" 'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."By citing Minor, which refers to the Law of Nations, Justice Gray reaffirms the notion that there is only once class of citizens who are without a doubt natural-born citizens. The Law of Nations defines a natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). The natural-born status of all other citizens is in doubt and has been left unresolved by the SCOTUS.
In the Ark decision, Justice Gray also quotes English common law, which defines anyone born within the realm as a natural-born subject, not as support for the ruling in Wong Kim Ark but rather to compare and contrast the various internationally-recognized historical definitions of natural-born. He further refers to the historical concept of a person's political status versus civil status noting that the two are distinctly separate by definition but can overlap in practice.
Additionally, by using three different labels for citizenship (natural-born citizen, citizen, naturalized citizen) the language of the Constitution inherently identifies three entities, granted those entities may overlap in some cases. If there were no difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen, why distinguish a different standard for President?
Furthermore, I would point out that the U.S. Foreign Affairs manual stipulates the following:
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.Since the U.S. State Department is unsure whether or not a group of citizens qualifies as natural-born, but acknowledges them as citizens who were not naturalized, then, by definition, that indicates that there are possibly three classes of citizens. (Two absolute classes: natural-born U.S. citizen and naturalized U.S. citizen; One vague class: U.S. citizen, possibly natural-born.)
Since there is no settled law, we need a Supreme Court decision to answer these questions.
Here's my analogy regarding the difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen. All managers are employees of a company, but not all employees are managers. There's a higher requirement to become a manager and a greater assigned responsibility to hold that position. Both employees and managers are entitled to the benefits conferred upon employees by the company and are bound by the company's rules and policies. The designation of employee is equivalent to one's civil status - being bound by a set of rules and eligible to the benefits of employment. The designation of manager is equivalent to one's political status - owing a greater responsibility to the company's business objectives and goals.
So, in short, perhaps the founding fathers intended the label natural-born citizen to be more of a political distinction than a civil distinction. There really is no civil distinction between a natural-born citizen, a citizen, and a naturalized citizen because all are entitled to the same protection under the law. There is however a political distinction between a natural born citizen and every other citizen in that only the former can be president.