It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion ...
If what Rawle believed were actually true, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. Rawle also quotes Vattel and the Law of Nations in the book, but fails to explain why he doesn't prescribe to Vattel's definition of natural-born citizens. In the end, Rawle's opinion is overruled by a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court opinion in Minor v. Happersett.
“In the end, Rawle’s opinion is overruled by a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court opinion in Minor v. Happersett.”
No it isn’t. Why do people say such things?
That Rawle quote was taken so far out of context it isn’t even funny.