No. It is not. You have a very poor understanding of case law.
There are only two types of US citizens - citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens have to go through a legal naturalization process and are issued naturalization papers, were as citizens at birth do not have to go through such a process nor are they issued naturalization papers. It is really that simple. There are no asterisks on some US born citizen's birth certificates indicating that they are only partial citizens at birth.
However, there are often legitimate and legal questions as to citizenship for those born abroad such as the case you cited up thread; in that case BTW where the plaintiff's father was a naturalized US citizen and an active duty US service member, but who very importantly as it should be noted, had not met the US residency requirements and the plaintiff as a child he did not enter the US after his birth on a US Passport but on visa form that listed his nationality as Jamaican. His father might have attempted to registered his son's birth with the US Consulate in Germany, which may not have been issued because of the residency requirement, but for whatever reason seemed to choose not to and brought his son into the US on a Visa.
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." While the original Act of 1790 was later repealed, that part of the Act was not as it was repeated, upheld and restated in all the subsequent Naturalization Acts that replaced it and later further expanded to citizenship based on the mother's citizenship as long as she meets the residency requirements.
But to say that a child born to a US born citizen parent or parents while one or both parents are active duty service members and or are employed by a US company and stationed overseas, that if they conceive and give birth to a child while stationed there, that this child suddenly has an allegiance to the "soil" on which the child was born, regardless of the allegiance of his or her parents has to the US, is quite frankly stupid and against the spirit of the law and what the Founding Fathers intended and had to say on the subject.
FWIW, my nephew's wife was born in Germany while her US born, a US citizen from birth father was stationed there, serving his country as an active duty military serviceman/ career officer and he brought his US born citizen wife and their US born citizen daughter with him. Her "older" sister was only 6 months old when he got his transfer orders and as they were stationed there for over 10 years, she spent most of her earliest and formative years in Germany. She attended a school where both English and German were spoken and became very fluent in German - something that has served her well later in life as she later served as a translator for the State Department and then when back to Germany for several years on a contract with the US military to teach English to German soldiers and contractors working with the US military.
My nephew's wife was born seven years later and in Germany (she has a German Certificate of a Live Birth but her birth was also registered with the US Consulate and she has had a US Passport nearly since birth) but since her father was transferred back to the US when she was only 3 years old, she has very few memories of living in Germany and aside from knowing a few words and phrases, she does not speak German unlike her US born older sister.
But according to you, my nephew's wife is not a NBC but her older sister however is.
Think about how irrational that is. And think about how no US service member or contractor or a US citizen temporarily working overseas, who is married would ever accept an overseas assignment if it meant that any child he and his wife gave birth to while serving overseas would have some sort of "second class" or in any way a limited citizenship.
Brief Summary of Rogers v. Bellei: 01/16/2016 6:14:49 PM
That Katyal/Clement article is false and misleading. The 1790 act is no definition, it is a "legal fiction." The phrase "shall be considered as" is a common way to create a legal fiction - see, for a modern example, Social Security regulation that says a 21 year old shall be considered as a child.
-- But to say that a child born to a US born citizen parent or parents while one or both parents are active duty service members and or are employed by a US company and stationed overseas, that if they conceive and give birth to a child while stationed there, that this child suddenly has an allegiance to the "soil" on which the child was born, regardless of the allegiance of his or her parents has to the US, is quite frankly stupid .. --
It is also a straw man. I never said that, and there is no case law that says that.
-- You have a very poor understanding of case law. --
Right. Sure I do. Just because you say so, eh? Let's see you demonstrate your case law prowess.
Yes, and the justices in Wong v. Kim agree with you. Read what else they have to say:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."