Replies

Danae said:

Interesting.

Welcome to FR!

Thank you. It is good to be here.

Red Steel said:

I tried to get a microfilm, PDF, et al copy of this through the Interlibrary Loan system, but someone would not send me the specific requested 1787 Messr. Berry and Rogers edition. They sent me instead the 1796-97 copy.

Yes they will definitely do that as the books are considered "interchangeable". One visit to the Library of Congress is all that's needed. Rest assured all books after 1760 have similar translations. The Law of Nations was originally translated into English in London. At the time, there was no exact similarity to Natural-Born Subject, as the word "subject" was not a part of the citizenship section in question within Law of Nations.

Regardless, sources like Wikipedia are not correct with regards to this phrase being "missing" from earlier English translations. Natives and natural-born citizens are the same. They are interchangeable. They cannot and should not be separated. It is clear from the 1797 edition that it used various English translations to get the final copy of this definition, which for over 200 years, has not been challenged nor changed.

The world is a very different place than it was during the ratification of the Constitution. However, citizenship has remained relatively constant. The inalienable truth that citizenship is an international term where many countries still confer citizenship to children through the father, not the mother.