“And what makes you think that it wasn’t that way in earlier translations??? Where did John Jay get the phrase “natural born citizen” and how come Washington adn the other Framers understood it enough to put it into Article II and then into the Immigration Act of 1790???”
I don’t think it was that way in earlier translations because I’ve seen earlier translations, and they don’t attempt to translate the word. This also agrees with what El Gato has posted, and I trust him even while we disagree.
Where did John Jay get the phrase? Several court rulings indicate they think it came from natural born subject, and another birther posted an extract from that time frame where the French read ‘natural subject’ and it was translated as ‘natural born citizen’. The guy posting it thought it proved natural means NBC, while I think the phrase natural subject would reasonably be translated NBC, if the natural born subject theory is true.
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U. S. 242 (1830) tends to support this. It uses phrases like “British born subjects” instead of just British subject. The woman was considered a citizen even after her marriage to a Brit:
“The marriage of Ann Scott with Shanks, a British officer, did not change or destroy her allegiance to the State of South Carolina, because marriage with an alien, whether friend or enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife.”
Also, “If they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”
Thus subject and citizen are interchangeable, depending on the form of government.
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"
Note that children of citizens were to be "natural born citizens", according to them, no matter where they were born. And the father not the mother was the determining factor of that citizenship.
. No it did not. "sujets naturels" was translated as "natural born subjects". We even know who the probable translator was. The translation considered by Congress was in Charles Thomson's hand, making him the likely translator. He was the secretary of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1789. IOW, the entire existence of that body. He is known to have translated an early version of the Bible from Greek to English. I'm sure translation of a diplomatic note from the French was not much of a challenge for him.
Maybe you need a break. Try the Religion threads. You can reason over there. ;-]