I accept your explanation that it was a mistake on your part and not intentional.
I am, or was, a Birther, until Obama coughed up his long form and for a while I was uncertain about the Vattle stuff. One thing I noticed was that whenever I debated Obots, I beat them like carpets over a clothesline on stuff. While the Vattle Birthers always got beat like drums by the Obots. While I was busy and effective at convincing people that something was fishy about Obama or he would have coughed it up, the Vattle Birthers were just getting clobbered by Obots who understood the law.
Sooo, I did some asking around, and I read some of the arguments about 10 times and it became obvious to me that all the Vattle stuff was just stupid. There is the Chinese guy case and one from somewhere in 2009 that just nailed it. Ever since then, I have not had any use for the Vattle foolishness. That was about a year ago.
I would suggest that you read those two cases and forget the all the stuff from 50 years before the Chinese guy case. I can find the cases if you need a cite because I did a couple of Internet Articles on them.
Plus, there is still a lot of mileage that can be milked out of Obama taking 3 years to cough up a $14 document but the Vattle stuff is just a dead end and is embarrassing to rest of the Birther movement.
The only problem is that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. In addition to that, it did not apply to "natural born citizenship", only basic citizenship. It is also superceded as precedent by Minor v Happersett which does cite the Vattel definition as the salient qualification of Miss Minor.
I have quotes from four prominent congressmen declaring that the 14th Amendment DOES NOT grant citizenship to the children of "temporary sojourners." The Children of Foreign citizens are NOT citizens, according to Two Senators and Two congressmen who wrote and sponsored the 14th Amendment. They said these things while EXPLAINING the 14th Amendment to the REST of the congress.
If you know anything about the Legislative process, it is the intent of the legislature that defines the law. The Intent of the US Congress was that the act would not cover the children of Aliens.
That the Supreme court got it wrong in Wong Kim Ark is just an unavoidable fact. They got it right in Minor v Happersett.