William Rawle is one reference, not the only reference. The point is that there was a diversity of opinion on this issue even in the time of the Founders and Framers. There was no monolithic “correct” point of view.
If you have a better reference, I would suggest you put it on the table. I have argued this topic a long time, and seemingly all your arguments lead back to Rawle.
The point is that there was a diversity of opinion on this issue even in the time of the Founders and Framers. There was no monolithic “correct” point of view.
While I will grant that that is a possibility, I will also point out that the possibility also exists that there WAS a monolithic "correct" point of view. (Among the Delegates and Ratifiers, who are the only people that matter anyway.)
Certainly it is possible that some subsequent courts and various ignorant lawyer types presumed that the delegates were referring to British Common law, but their opinions do not determine what was the intent of the delegates. So far as I have been able to determine, actual delegates have voiced opinions and expressed actions which indicate that they support the Vattel definition more so than the British Common law definition.
Virginia Delegates John Marshall and Bushrod Washington deliberately CITE Vattel in support of their understanding of US Citizenship.
James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin and William Lewis also appear to express Vattel's understanding of the term.
And all you've got is Rawle, publishing a book 42 years later, and he not even being a delegate?