The French word “naturels” used by Vattel translates to “natural born”. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/ ... and ... https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
No, it doesn’t. It simply doesn’t. “Naturel” means “natural.” It’s an adjective which has been used as a noun and pluralized (even “animal” is an adjective), and is used in a billion contexts where there “natural born” makes no sense. And if you said, “quel-ce que naturel!” not a soul in all of France would think you’re saying, “What a natural-born!” They would think you meant, “What a natural!” as in “what a prodigee!”
There is even a term used in France to mean “a natural-born citizen,” which is “un citoyen de naissance” or maybe “un citizen de naissance naturelle.” (That is the same word as “naturel” but it’s feminized to “Naturelle” here, because it refers to “birth,” which is a feminine word not “citizen.”)
If Vattel were using “naturels” to refer to a kind of citizen, he would never have left off “citoyen.” Instead, he’s using it to mean that someone is, under what the Anglosphere would call “natural law,” a native, as opposed to a “naturalized citizen,” which would be someone who required a recognition by legislation to be regarded as a native, rather than being native by birth.
Why then the distinction between “born citizen” and “natural-born citizen?” Well, that’s why someone interested in natural law would read Vattel: he’s arguing that when someone is born of someone who is a wanderer, he doesn’t “naturally” acquire rights or obligations to the country he happens to be born in.
So when does a wanderer become able to have children who are “natural-born?” The use of the word, “naturalized” would suggest that it definitely happens when the immigrant receives citizenship. But that use of that word by the founding fathers also suggests “natural-born” is as opposed to “naturalized.” Does this suggest that the children of naturalized children are natural-born? Yes. You inherit the properties of your parents and have no natural obligations to any foreign power.
Does this suggest that the children of non-citizen legal immigrants are natural-born? Well, they obtain their citizenship under the 14th amendment by virtue of their birth, so I would say yes, but I could recognize the plausibility of the claim that those who are not naturalized cannot pass down the characteristic of being “natural.” I’m aware of nowhere that there has ever been claimed that this is a recessive trait; either parent being a citizen, for instance, passes on their citizenship to their child, whether born in the U.S. or not.
The bad news is this case refers to someone who is explicitly excluded from being under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. The good news is that while U.S. law certainly applies itself to those who make themselves subject to it by arriving without such immunity, the fact that their presence is illegal doesn’t automatically grant them the full privileges of citizenship; I’d arguing that calling illegal aliens “under the jurisdiction of U.S. law” is outrageous as calling an invading army that.
Vattel-is-Law-Part-1: https://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2015/09/vattel-is-law-part-1.html
Vattel-is-Law-Part-2: https://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2016/05/vattel-is-law-part-2.html