Prove it didn’t.
Furthermore, prove to me how the phrase would get into the constitution if all the various founders who were also fluent in french, and there were a few... tell me, in the careful and obviously deliberative debates they held, all the work they did, the writing, the re-writing... that a singular phrase, “Natural Born Citizen” was some sort of TYPO??? A mistranslation? And WASN’T caught by the other French speaking founders?? One that found its way independently into all the english translations? Riiiiiiigh.
Dude. Seriously. I have to thank you for the laugh today. It was a good shot, but ya know.. yea. Fail.
I cannot prove something to someone who refuses to accept the truth. But prior to 1797, Vattel’s book read, in translation, “The natives, or indigenens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
The French original was “Les Naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nes dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” An Internet translator has it “The Natural or indigenes make those who make nes in the country of Parens Citoyens.”
“tell me, in the careful and obviously deliberative debates they held, all the work they did, the writing, the re-writing... that a singular phrase, “Natural Born Citizen” was some sort of TYPO??? A mistranslation?”
That is the point. It didn’t come from the French, but from a well known and “precisely analogous” LEGAL term, “natural born subject”, with citizen substituted for subject due to the difference in type of government.