the following article
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1646&context=jcl
makes the case that the US term natural born citizen was considered analogous to the English term natural born subject.
The Vattel original term was indigene (which imho does not seem to help) and was translated into English twice. The 1760 translation is citizen, and the (much later) 1797 translation is natural born citizen.
Founding Fathers were not JV British Subjects!! Lol
They knew all about the citzenship-subjectship false analogy.
My Translation and Analysis of a Key Sentence in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 Treatise on Natural Law in Section 212 -“Des citoyens et naturels”: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/
This is the same lying, deceptive argument that has been put forth ever since the Constitutional Convention, and most especially by William Rawle, who wrote a famous law book pushing this very wrong, and proven wrong, idea.
The clue is in the word "Subject." A "Citizen" is not a "Subject", and the concept is not even based on the same philosophical foundation.
Subjects are Monarchical, while "Citizens" emerge from Republics.
It makes perfect sense for a King to decree that everyone born on his land owes loyalty to him, because that serves his interest and his power.
Citizen, on the other hand, has *ALWAYS* been defined as the descendant of citizens. Even Aristotle, that Greek guy from thousands of years ago, defined a "Citizen" as someone who descended from a Citizen.
The Romans defined "Citizen" as someone who descended form a Roman father.
Citizen has *NEVER* been defined as someone born on the King's land. That word is "Subject", and that is exactly what we threw off in 1776 when we decided that we would rule ourselves.