I’ve just read about half of 12 U.S. 253, and I cannot see the relevancy of that case to natural-born citizenship. What am I missing?
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire
how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character
or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
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.”
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence
to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, 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 laws or custom gives
them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens.
Concurring decision by Chief Justice John Marshall
Because I suspect you will note the use of the word “indigene”, I'll suggest that you find the same passage in any of the English translations of Law of Nations to learn that “indigene” was translated to “natural born citizen”.