Shockingly, Vattel was not a 2 citizen parent birther either. There's a reason why Birthers never quote the entirety of 212, would never in a million years quote 215, which directly talks about birth to citizens in a foreign land and says that place makes no difference.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/what ... l_head_015
§212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society, without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§214. Naturalisation.
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalisation. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens,—for example, that of holding public offices,—and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalisation. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalise a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.
§215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country.
It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. 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; I say “of itself,” for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
But the truth of the matter is that because of the Birthers there is a VAST amount of legal precedent and rulings showing Obama was a Natural Born citizen and eligible for the presidency. The Birthers either ignore it at try and invent reasons why it doesn't matter.
The classic is the appeal court ruling of Ankeny V Daniels, cited as binding precedent by cases all over the country. Births try and claim it does not mater because it was an appeal court and not the REAL court, but that does not mean shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Ob ... litigation
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana
In December 2008, Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse filed a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition" against Indiana governor Mitch Daniels to block "any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors [sic]." A hearing was held, and on March 16, 2009, Daniels' motion to dismiss was granted. The Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld it on November 12, 2009.[100]
The appellate decision addressed the question of whether Obama's eligibility was affected by his father's lack of U.S. citizenship, saying that "based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."[101] On April 1, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a request to consider the case.[102]
Philly Boondoggle
) said it was just a theory. Maybe:
;
s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" 
