Mr Rogers,
Actually, he used the word, “naturels” also. But the fact that “naturels” isn’t identical to “indigenes” is good here: He’s staking out that there is a third type of person, that includes “indigenes” (those whose people are indigenous to a nation) and excludes naturalized citizens, and that is someone who is a “natural-born citizen” despite not being indigenous.
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
Google Translate: “The Naturals or natives are those who are born in the country of Parents Citizens.”
It refers to the indigenes - indigenous people - since it says “Les Naturels OR indigènes”. Indigenes is thus another way of saying “naturals”. Indigene is still an English word as well as French: “a person who is native to a particular place, in particular a member of an Indigenous people”.
It does NOT refer to the LEGAL TERM “Natural Born Citizen” which was used in legal documents in colonial times (and afterward) as the interchangeable equivalent of “Natural Born Subjects” - a term all the Founding Fathers were familiar with and used.
If you want to know what the legal term meant, as understood by the Founders, it gets a detailed review in Wong Kim Ark:
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
16
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established....”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649