It’s not the French version of ‘indigenae’ that translates into natural born, but the term ‘naturel’ which was translated by the framers of the Constitution as natural born, a term Vattel used in specific reference to natural citizenship at birth, which he says follows the citizenship of the father ... regardless of place.
There’s no question that the King of England unified Scotland as part of his Kingdom and made HIS own declaration that aliens (or Scots specifically) were HIS subjects ... and are henced called ‘natural born’ subjects. This isn’t natural citizenship, but a statutory declaration, which Vattel recognized in the Laws of Nations: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
That may be, but Vattel treats the two terms as synonymous: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui..." So it doesn't matter which one got translated as "natural born"--if we're to rely on Vattel at all, we have to consider the two terms as meaning the same thing.
So if we accept your translation, Vattel used "indigene" to refer to what we call an NBC. But Coke said that "indigenae," or "subjects born," could be the children of a noncitizen. And our Supreme Court accepted that statement and used the term "natural-born subject" in connection with it. If Vattel disagrees with Coke, why should we accept the definitions of a Swiss philosopher over those of an English jurist?