Once again - in your translation, “natural born” is translating “indigenes”, not “naturels”.
The document you discovered translates “sujets naturels” as natural born subjects - which would enforce the idea of common law “natual born subjects”, since otherwise it would translate to “natural subjects”. The ‘born’ comes from the phrase in English common law.
In other words, you’ve shown nothing useful to your case. You have shown that English common law was the source of their thinking...
The Founders translated naturels to natural born. There is a difference. Naturels to the Founders did not mean simply the word natural..to them the term mean natural born. Common Law has nothing to do with their understanding of its meaning.
The document presented was from the French Foreign Minister on behalf of His Most Christian Majesty. The document was not from the English King.
The document has nothing to do with English Common Law. You are spinning your nonsense again and again to no avail.
This is clear documentation the Founders meant naturels to mean natural born.
Vattel said the naturels (natural born) are born to citizen parents.
Why do you come here and desecrate our Country and it's Constitution for a lying POS commie SOB that is in front of your, and our, eyes....and that is is destroying our very way of life? AND YOU DEFEND HIM?????
You, must really tell us all, WHY?
ROFLMAO, it amazes me how ignorant you make yourself look everytime you post a comment.
naturels = natural born; sujet = subjects; citoyens = citizens
What part of ascertaining a definition do you not comprehend?
Chief Justice John Jay, landmark Supreme Court Case, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]