I’m not lying. It is a fact, and birthers agree it is true.
“The original French-language version of Vattel’s Law of Nations contained this sentence:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, font ceux qui font nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens. (Des citoyens et naturels)
The first English translation of Law of Nations, published in 1759, rendered the above sentence as:
The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
These words were quoted, verbatim, by the Supreme Court in The Venus case (1814).
In an updated English translation published in 1797, the word “indigenes” was changed to “natural born citizens”:
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Vattel, §212)”
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
That is a birther web site. He goes on to claim “indigenes” can be translated NBC, although in reality it is the same as the English ‘indigenous’...and the REAL equivalent phrase is “sujets naturels”.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#fn22
Have you personally consulted the 1787 New York edition at the Library of Congress or elsewhere? http://lccn.loc.gov/41038703 . Since it seems your answer is no, I urge you to cease posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
There’s no real distinction here. The natives and indigenous are defined as being born in the country to citizen parents. The concept of native-born, as the founders understood it, still revolved around being born to citizens. It makes complete sense then, given the 1781 translation of sujet naturels, that Vattel was revised to say natural born citizens in 1797. Thanks for proving you were wrong.