That's the prevailing view on the subject among legal scholars, though I'd stop just short of calling it the consensus view. It is not, however, a popular view on Free Republic. There is no definitive point of view, because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on point.
If you don’t have Scalia and Thomas, you can’t win with a Vattel/Minor theory at the Supreme Court.
I think that's safe to say.
SCOTUS may decide what gets forced down our throats, but this is a very different thing from deciding what is true.
Do you support Roe v Wade? If not, then tell me again about SCOTUS deciding stuff?
The difference between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen is that the first can be so by naturalization statute while the latter requires no statute.
I don’t know of a single legal scholar who has advocated for a different point of view from the one expressed in the majority opinion in 1884’s Elk v. Wilkens: “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”