“Vattel was written in French” True enough, and he never used the French term for NBC, which was ‘sujets natural’...
It took a bad translation made 10 years after the Constitution for anyone to find NBC in Vattel.
I will assume your comment is the result of ignorance rather than a willful attempt to mislead. I will set you straight on this. The following is a partial text of a translation from French to English which was written in 1781. (6 years before the convention.) I direct your attention to Article III in both the French and English text. Note the translation of "sujets naturels" is "natural born subjects."
Now let us have enough of hearing this false claim.
“Now let us have enough of hearing this false claim.”
Not false. It was one of your birther buddies who posted a translation made of French documents for both English and American use, AFTER the Constitution (which your translation was NOT), and it showed the British translation was NBS, and the American one was NBC.
At the time you discussed (1781), prior to the US Constitution, NBS was pretty much it.
That, of course, was true of VATTEL as well, writing in the 1750s. Since NBC did not exist at the time Vattel wrote - there being no USA or US citizens, Vattel could have, at best, written about NBS - which would have been, as you admit, ‘sujets naturel’.
But Vattel did NOT use the phrase, which defined citizenship in England and the Colonies. A correct translation of Vattel would be, as in the prior translations, “the native, or indigenous”.
“naturel” and “indigenes” do not translate NBC or NBS.