Your repeatedly fixate on a single interpretation of single word of Vattel's while completely ignoring the definition.
But, as you pointed out in previous posts, the Founders ALSO used Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which was completed years before the Constitution was even written:
BOOK I. / CHAPTER THE TENTH
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES.
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Vattels' definition has the same definition as Blackstones. Whether the word is native, indigenes, indigenous or natural born subject or natural born citizen, the concept was the same ...the country of the fathers was the country of the children.
Contrary to the popular belief, the 14th Amendment granted NO jus soli citizenship, and the criteria for inherited, natural born citizenship was still being acknowledged in 1866:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
To try to say the Founders actually meant jus soli, or soil-based citizenship based on a modern day interpretation of a single word is ludicrous.
It wasn't until Wong Kim Ark that the concept of jus soli citizenship ever even came up, and even as unconstitutional as THAT finding was, the judge STILL differentiated between soil-based and blood-based citizenship.
------
I do find it odd the slip of paper you show not only uses French words in an English translation, but is a piss-poor job of typesetting. Unusual for craftsmanship of the age as books were quite precious.
You say its from the 1760 version, but all I find are the 1797 version which say they're reprints of the 1758 version.... and they all say natural-born.
Do please provide a link....that isn't a foaming-at-the-mouth 'anti birther' site.
---------
You say: That the Founders considered jus soli citizenship and jus sanguinis citizenship to be the same thing.
And do not EVER.....EVER twist my words to say something I never said again!
This is my last reply to you MamaTexan but here is the info you wanted.
English Editions of The Law of Nations
Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattel’s later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.
You say its from the 1760 version, but all I find are the 1797 version which say they’re reprints of the 1758 version.... and they all say natural-born.
(OF COURSE ALL YOU CAN FIND IS THE 1797 VERSION because all prior version dont say NBC and you don’t WANT to find them because then you’d have to face the facts which obviously you don’t want to do. What is it that just doesn’t penetrate your skull?)
Do please provide a link....that isn’t a foaming-at-the-mouth ‘anti birther’ site.
How about this. Show me any FRENCH version of Vattel’s book that contains “Citoyen né naturel” which means Natural born citizen and I’ll come down to Texas and wash your windows.
Since I can’t seem to enclose an image without making every paragraph run together take a look at the next post which is
a copy of the 1787 translation which still doesn’t say Natural Born Citizen. I have to admit those obots sure went out of their way to get these images. If I lived near a class library I’d go check it out myself but I’m assuming that they wouldn’t lie and that it just makes sense to me (AND OBVIOUSLY EVERY JUDGE IN THIS COUNTRY) that the founders went with the commonly known form of citizenship that they lived with for many, many years before the Revolution.