Comment: Let's go through that point by point

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Natural-Born Citizen Defined (see in situ)

Let's go through that point by point

Point by point, and I'll use "BNBC" to refer to the birther definition of natural-born citizen, i.e., including the requirement of being born on US soil.

(1) You define "foreigners" to be "those with foreign citizenship or allegiance" which although you don't cite a source for that interpretation is fine with me -- and doesn't support the BNBC.

(2) Obviously a much weaker condition than BNBC.

(3) Citing the use of the phrase "natural-born citizen" in the Constitution.

(4) Re: Vattel, they probably read beyond the bit that birthers quote out of context, down to the part about natural (not naturalized) citizenship at birth *not* depending on the place of birth, but rather on the citizenship and loyalty of the father.

(5) Absolutely the point is to avoid foreign influence, and here they might have had Vattel in mind where he argues that the presumption is that a child's loyalty will follow those of the father, and that it is this, and not the place of birth, that determines the child's natural citizenship at birth.

(6) The issue isn't whether someone could be president merely by being born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. But that of course is not the issue at all here.

(7) Heh. That's reading a lot into something not being mentioned, and it begs the question of whether there's a third category at all. Perhaps they had Vattel's argument in mind, where he describes citizenship given by nature at birth (based on the father's citizenship and loyalty) and citizenship by naturalization (given by an act of law), and doesn't have a third contrived category of citizen-by-nature-when-born-but-not-natural-born-citizen.

Then you have the word "THEREFORE" in all caps, but you're straining for a conclusion you haven't even begun to give an argument to support.

You quote Minor v. Happersett which argued that because someone met *sufficient* conditions for being a NBC they were therefore a citizen, which is a perfectly valid form of argument. What that case did not do (and clearly so, if you read it) was define NBC. The author wasn't confused about the difference between a sufficient condition, and a definition.

This type of citizenship is "natural" since it is the only type of citizenship that requires no special laws, treaties or constitutional amendments and results naturally upon our birth ...

The part of Vattel that birthers always omit says quite clearly (section 215) " 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; ...". The reference back to section 212 makes it clear that he's talking about citizenship. Note carefully that this is "by the law of nature alone" and a right that "nature has given him," i.e., clearly not naturalized citizenship which he describes and explains elsewhere. Also note the next section, "... naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights ...".

So Vattel disagrees with you. You say that the BNBC is the only "natural" type of citizenship, requiring not only being born on US soil but being born to two US citizens, but Vattel describes here the case of a child born on foreign soil but by nature alone inheriting the citizenship of his father at birth (as long as the father's loyalties are still with the country of his citizenship).