A point which I've never contradicted.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
It was up to the federal government to set the criteria for naturalization and it was up to the States to see to it that the individuals met the criteria for naturalization.
It is NOT the same thing as Congress having the sole authority on every type of citizenship.
-----
BTW - nice attempt at obfuscating the point of the original post which was how much influence Vattel had and whether or not common law was operational on a national level.
-----
If you like to have a conversation of your own with me, I'd be happy to have one.
Unless you just like trolling the thread and picking up someone elses' sloppy seconds.