In the conventions with the French, the phrase was (and I’ll transliterate since I don’t want to look it up) ‘subjects natural’ - which was translated into the equivalent English common law phrase ‘natural born subject’. The born was added to make it the equivalent English LEGAL phrase, showing that the translators were thinking of English common law. Otherwise they would have translated it ‘natural subjects’.
Based on language, there was no reason to add born to either document - it is only if the translator is trying to get the equivalent phrase from common law that ‘born’ appears. After all, the French DO have a word for born, which does NOT appear in either text.
Now, if they are trying for the equivalent common law phrase, then a combination of Vattel AND common law COULD be the origin of the phrase in the Constitution - but that leaves you with having to decide which is dominate - Vattel or common law. Since common law is driving the addition of new words, I’d say common law - a position the courts have traditionally agreed with.
But then one would have to assume that you have actually STUDIED the subject from the ancient philosophers who 1st wrote the common law. nature = natural = children born to citizens parents is the word according to Plato & Socrates who 1st put the common law in writing. It began at the simplest level with family tribes, then expanded to a city level, incorporating/naturalization(1st immigration laws) then state, then nation but at the core unless you were born to citizen parents, you were considered an alien/foreigner. Natural citizenship from its beginning was either inherited through blood by being born to citizen parents. PERIOD!
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=titlepage&pg=PA196&id=w-ktAAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Apparently there is. Otherwise why would a modern day translation program, which surely knows nothing of English common law, translate "natural-born citizen" as " les citoyens naturels" ?