Duke Wellington pointed out that he was not Irish, despite being born in Ireland - by saying that ‘being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse’. Via English law he was correct. Birth place was not an absolute requirement to being a natural born subject of England.
As the US case Wong Kim Ark points out - those born in England of alien parents were natural born subjects of England. Thus parentage was not an absolute requirement to being a natural born subject of England.
So you are reduced now to making the argument that the founders were more familiar with Vattel than they were with English law? Another fools errand - no doubt you are up to the challenge!
>> “So you are reduced now to making the argument that the founders were more familiar with Vattel than they were with English law?” <<
.
They were familiar with both, but they studied almost exclusively in the French language during that period. Things expressed in the English language were considered crude and erudite.
Crude. not erudite was what my brain said but not what my fingers typed.
Evidently, the fool is still you. You said:
“Duke Wellington pointed out that he was not Irish, despite being born in Ireland - by saying that ‘being born in a stable doesn’t make one a horse’. Via English law he was correct. Birth place was not an absolute requirement to being a natural born subject of England.”
Exactly. That is what Vattel said and why the Founders and Framers required not only birth in the country but also birth to “citizen” parents.
Well, given that this is the Book of English Law which John Adams studied, and given that he actually spent several months living with, and several years working with Charles Dumas (Editor/Publisher of Vattel's Droit des Gens), I would say that this particular founder most certainly does not follow YOUR definition of Natural Born Citizen.