[Mr Rogers]

No, not wrong on any account. The phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in translation until 1797, and it is a poor translation. A better translation would be ‘The natives, or indigenous people...’

As for the debate, there was none. There was no debate involving that section of the Constitution.

There is no denying that “natural born subject” was a legal term with a specific meaning, or that “natural born citizen” is an Americanized version of it.

Had the Founders wanted to follow Vattel, they would have written “born of citizens”. That they used a legal term indicates they MEANT a legal term...they were not stupid enough to insert a legal phrase without intending the meaning of it.

[edge919]

No, not wrong on any account. The phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in translation until 1797, and it is a poor translation. A better translation would be ‘The natives, or indigenous people...’

This is pure and utter nonsense. Vattel uses the term 'naturel' which was translated in 1781 in the journals of the Continental Congress to mean "natural born." The 1797 was fixing a poor translation from prior editions of Law of Nations.

[AmericanVictory]

You are simply wrong, as testified to by Chief Justice John Marshall, John Jay, St. George Tucker and may others familiar with the discourse of the time, which you clearly are not. The French itself is very easy to understand and the description of indigenes in the early translations is extremely clear. Somehow you are not as convincing as was Mr. Justice Story. But keep up the misinformation; it is clearly what you get rewarded for.