Nice maneuver in an attempt to draw me into conjecture while evading the original question.
Please show me exactly where in the decision the judges said Wong Kim was a 'natural-born citizen'.
Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me. Let's get back to the original question.
The one that you have again and again refused to answer.
If it can be shown that there is a far better candidate than Vattel for who gave us the phrase "Offences against the Law of Nations" in our Constitution, will you agree that Vattel most likely was not the source?
Now, to your question.
Please show me exactly where in the decision the judges said Wong Kim was a 'natural-born citizen'.
First, show me where the Founding Fathers or Framers ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
You can't? That's a shame. Because I can show you were a very authoritative early American legal expert said that it absolutely DID NOT.
Please show me exactly where ANY significant legal authority ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
You can't? That's a shame, because if you like, I can come up with dozens of quotes that say or at least strongly imply that it doesn't.
Please show me exactly where any Founder or Framer said they relied on Vattel for the meaning of citizenship.
You can't? Well, that's a shame. Because I can show you where one of our most important Framers said that when we needed to understand the meaning of terms in the Constitution, we ought to look to the English common law.
Please show me exactly where Minor v Happersett said two citizen parents are REQUIRED in order for a person to be a natural born citizen, and that without those two citizen parents, one is not a natural born citizen.
You can't? That's a shame.
Now, as regards US v Wong Kim Ark. Your question. Try this:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?" But...
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THEH [UNITED STATES,] ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE [COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,] AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN [THE UNITED STATES] IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and in the US. So we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where they originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to subject. So that means that when writing the rule for the United States, we can substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see "subject."
And the also told us that the sovereign, or king has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable and inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is completely disingenuous.
It is all very straightforward.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN [THE UNITED STATES] [which most definitely included Wong Kim Ark] IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR [which he wasn't,] OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE [which he wasn't,] OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN [which he wasn't.]
That also explains why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases. Because they already decided the issue, in 1898.
It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs. Because that is what you are.
And all of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course you will do, since, as we've seen, you're completely and irrevocably committed to believing in birtherism even if it's a complete fantasy.