“Is it?”
Yes. Undoubtedly. Why?
1 - I am NOT saying the US is UNDER English common law. I AM saying the legal language in the USA, as of 1787, was determined by the meanings that had developed under English common law.
2 - Vattel never used the phrase “natural born citizen”. He did not use the French equivalent, and none of the translation of his work made prior to 1797 used NBC. They all used “The natives, or indignes”. Indigenes is still an English word that refers to the indigenous people. So if they had wanted to follow Vattel, they would have required the President be a “native citizen” or an “indigenous citizen”. They would NOT have followed Vattel by using a term Vattel never used.
3 - The legislatures of the early US had used NBC and NBS interchangeably, both before the US Constitution was written and afterward. If the ratifying legislatures used NBC & NBS interchangeably, then they obviously believe the terms WERE equivalents.
4 - The US Supreme Court has already ruled such in Wong Kim Ark:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
There is absolutely no doubt that legally and logically, the Founders were using the definition of NBS as the definition of NBC - not Vattel.
Straight from the assertions presented by the CRSR, but which, logically, are immediately disproved by simply reading the rest of the sentence:
"... sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens…." or, in English: "are those who are born in the country, of citizen parents." Stated otherwise, whether denominated a "naturel," an "indigene," a "natural born Citizen" or a parrot, the entity at issue – in order to match its antecedent – needed to be born in the country to parents who also were citizens. Disputable nomenclature and labels aside, that concept is the crux of § 212, so that, whether one is called "natural born," "indigenous" or some other term, in order to qualify as such, one needed to be born in the country where the parents were also, at the time of birth, citizens.
In addition, the CRSR ignores the seventh and final sentence of § 212, which reads in French thusly: "Je dis que pour être d'un pays, il faut être né d’un pere citoyen; car si vous y êtes né d’un étranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans être votre patrie." Translation: "I say that in order to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a citizen father; for if [you] are born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of your birth, without being your country."
More addressing these issues here. I AM saying the legal language in the USA, as of 1787, was determined by the meanings that had developed under English common law.
It was not English common law haunting John Adam's, or English Common Law the courts declared would be the standard:
"John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me." These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)
In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution."
More here