“You’ve never studied the French language at all, have you?”
Actually I did, for two miserable years in Jr High. However...
The French word used by Vattel was “indigènes”. There is an English word:
“indigene”
Look familiar? Let me put them side by side:
indigènes / indigene
The English word means: “a person or thing that is indigenous or native; native”, and it comes from...drum roll please...
“Origin:
1590–1600; < Middle French < Latin indigena a native. See indigenous”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigene
Now...you want to comment more about how the French word “indigènes” should be translated “natural born citizen” rather than “indigene” or “indigenous”?
Ouch!!! I can feel that smackdown all the way over here and I am not even a Vattle Birther!!!
French and English share many words, but if you really did study it you know that the denotations and connotations didn’t make it across the channel.
English has more in common with German and Hebrew than with French. The Brits are prone to insulting any and everything that isn’t British.
Anyway, the version of The Law of Nations that was in use in the colonies was French, not the english translation, so the conflicts that you try to insert are imaginary.
Vattel didn’t speak of the location of birth; he embraced the obvious fact that the parents were the greatest influence on a child. That is the reason that the founders chose the concept of natural citizenship deriving from the citizenship of the parents.
If you were as enamoured as you claim to the 14th, you would have been aware that this issue was high on congress’ schedule of discussion in preparing the ammendment. They had no intention of trampling on this sacred concept, and by their own testimony, they left it untouched in their creation of What WKA called “native citizenship.”
It was at the time aimed solely at conferring citizenship to the slaves.