Here is what Vatell wrote:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens,
Natural born citizens (English terminology) is used to convey the French concept of the category of citizenry that is born in a country to parents who are of that country.
Naturels refers to citizens who are such by "Natural Law"...... or the natural circumstances surrounding their birth. They themselves had nothing to do with this circumstance.... so it is was classified as "naturel".
The Latin "indigenes" (English indigenous) means from within.... Within what? The country....naturally. This would be similar to speaking of indigenous folks who have claimed an area for generations. Thus....the term "Natural Born" (according to the usage in the 18th century) would mean the same as Les naturels, ou indigenes.
When John Jay first wrote to George Washington during the convention about the potential qualifications for a Commander in Chief (prior to the drafting of the Constitution) he used the exact phrase....Natural Born. At the time congress was in possession of three copies of Vattel's work (according to statements made by Benjamin Franklin) and were using the publication as a guide. Can we assume that if John Jay was using a certain phrase to convey a certain stipulation....that others were probably using it as well? It's unlikely that John Jay came up with this by himself and the manner in which he used it seems like it was part of the normal 18th century lexicon.
Now....folks can say that Natural Born is not an exact translation of Naturel, ou indigenes....but Naturally Indigenous conveys the same concept.....born in the country of indigenous folks.
The Supreme Court has never used the term "Natural Born" in any decision that does not imply...... citizens who were born of citizen parents. It's been the understanding down through the years that this indeed was the definition, and only recently have certain factions attempted to change this meaning.....to something else.
One early case before the court used this definition in its decision....while quoting directly from the "Law of Nations". Judge Justice Livingston wrote the unanimous decision of the The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) and stated this:
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:"........
“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
And, of course you are correct. The English translation of the "Law of Nations" uses the term "Natural Born" instead of "Naturally Indigenous". But....to 18th and 19th century folks this term found in the Constitution, qualifying the Presidency....and no other Constitutional office.....seemed to fit. It has never really been an issue until recently.
Yes, by one translator. Not by all. There is no inherent equivalence between "naturels, ou indigènes" and "natural born."
Naturels refers to citizens who are such by "Natural Law"...... or the natural circumstances surrounding their birth. They themselves had nothing to do with this circumstance.... so it is was classified as "naturel".
So do you agree that "citizen by birth" = "born a citizen" = "natural born citizen"?
This would be similar to speaking of indigenous folks who have claimed an area for generations. Thus....the term "Natural Born" (according to the usage in the 18th century) would mean the same as Les naturels, ou indigenes.
But, of course, the true indigenous people in the Americas were not considered citizens at all, much less natural born citizens, of the new United States. So again, there is no direct equivalence. It's one person's approximation.
At the time congress was in possession of three copies of Vattel's work (according to statements made by Benjamin Franklin) and were using the publication as a guide.
Copies in English with the "natural born" translation? Not from what I've read. Franklin could almost certainly have understood the French without need for translation.
It's unlikely that John Jay came up with this by himself and the manner in which he used it seems like it was part of the normal 18th century lexicon.
It was. As many have pointed out, the term "natural born citizen" was often used in the colonies interchangeably with the English common law term "natural born subject." It was a familiar term, but not from Vattel.
The Supreme Court has never used the term "Natural Born" in any decision that does not imply...... citizens who were born of citizen parents.
Well, that's just not accurate. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court wrote
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."