Replies

Wrong. I follow the Constitution on ALL things - and Vattel on NOTHING.

You claim to follow Vattel but either ignore him or are ignorant of what he actually says when you deem the children of soldiers born overseas to not be natural born.

And Vattel would not give citizenship of a different kind at birth to the children of foreign parents - he would not grant them citizenship AT ALL.

So how can it be said that U.S. law at any point follows Vattel?

How could anyone claiming to follow Vattel also claim that the children of soldiers are not natural born into the allegiance of their soldier parent?

I follow the Constitution on ALL things - and Vattel on NOTHING.
My apologies...thught you were someone else.
Here ya go...for a citizen who is absent with his family...

Did Vattel envision the man bringing his citizen wife and children with him or him marrying and having children in the country wherein he was stationed?

Perhaps you need to do a little more contextual reading instead of confining your reading...

THE LAW OF NATIONS BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Context, context, context. You're trying to pigeon hole things again.