What can I say? I gave you a quote from Vattel himself about what the law of nations is; you've quoted someone else quoting Vattel about how nations get formed. If you believe the law of nations governs how nations handle their internal affairs, I probably can't convince you otherwise.
A great many of the Founders were fluent in French as all well-educated men were in those days.
As they would need no 'translation', I fail to see the purpose of the comment.
You quoted a translation of Vattel to support your contention about what "natural-born citizen" means. Since so many Founders were fluent in French, they would not have needed that translation (or any translation--when you're fluent in a language, you just read it, you don't translate it). So there's no reason to think they thought "indigenes" meant the same thing as "natural-born citizen," especially given that the words "born" and "citizen" aren't even in the original.
Please source the English law in question.
I'm not sure there's an actual law that defines "natural-born subject." But there's lots of discussion of it in the Wong Kim Ark decision. One sample:
The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6, entitled "An act to enable His Majesty's natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,"....It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects."Look, I would very much like to have a discussion, but only with someone who wants to take an honest look at the evidence.
I'm sure you know that it's possible for someone to take an honest look at the evidence and still disagree with you. The problem is that I've been looking at the eligibility evidence for 5 years now, and yes, I've pretty much drawn my own conclusions quite some time ago. You haven't presented any evidence that I haven't seen before. As you probably feel the same about me, I'm perfectly happy to end the discussion here.
I quoted St. George Tucker about how OUR nation got formed.
St. George Tucker, was in the Revolutionary War and rose to the rank of Colonel. He communicated regularly with members of Congress and was appointed to the Virginia Court by President James Madison.
He's also the guy who just helped us fight off the government concerning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
St. George Tucker, Northwestern University Law Review Largely forgotten today, Tucker returned to some legal prominence last Term, when the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller cited his annotated Blackstone’s Commentaries as proof that the Second Amendment had originally been understood as an individual right to arms.
-------
I'm not sure there's an actual law that defines "natural-born subject."
The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700)
Okay. There's a 'notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,"....' line concerning inheritance.
Jus sanguines. That a Right of Blood.
It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects."
Jus soli citizens, Right of Soil..... but we don't have a King, so I really don't see that power as material here.
-----
The problem is that I've been looking at the eligibility evidence for 5 years now, and yes, I've pretty much drawn my own conclusions quite some time ago.
I truly appreciate your candor. I've been at it for a bit over a decade, though I admittedly floundered a couple of those by trying to start with the US Codes. Hoooo-boy!
I get so wrapped up reading through old books and through the Library of Congress, I now refer to it as DHO - Doing Hard-time Online...cause I look up and I've lost like 3 hours. LOL!
Like I said, enjoying the heck out of the conversation here. As long as its kept HONEST. That's my biggest concern.
Okay. Scrolled back through and realized I'd missed a point you'd made.
Assuming 'ou' in French means and operates the same as an 'or' in English.
This is not an either 'or', it's a refining 'or'.
The difference is it's like someone asking if you want coffee OR tea. You have 2 choices.
If someone asks if you want dessert, OR pie, you know there is only one choice because the dessert IS pie.
LOL! Didn't mean to turn into an edition of Little Red Schoolhouse. :-)