Common sense, a very depleted resource, would dictate that a couple abroad in the service of their country would be able to pass “natural born citizenship” to their children born abroad. Our military are our most patriotic citizens, risking life and limb for country. It doesn’t make sense to question the allegiance of their children, when the parents allegiance is so obvious. It would make sense that the physical location of birth be less important than the citizenship of the parents, though some argue that location is the only factor in determining natural born citizen status. Doesn’t make sense that our framers would be so stupid. Oh for the good ole’ days of common sense, which I’m sure the framers took for granted and assumed would survive. That has not been the case.
There have been several efforts to amend the Constitution, to allow those children born abroad of military citizens natural born citizenship. None has been ratified. The Naturalization Act of 1795 states that such children are citizens, not natural born citizens.
It’s an admirable sentiment, and a widespread, popular misconception, but it is not true that children born abroad of military citizen parents are natural born citizens.
Allegiance is not just a state of mind. It is a basis of legal claims. The country of birth claims these children as their own, in most instances. They follow jus soli, too. These legal entanglements would be extremely difficult in certain situations as Commander In Chief. Times of war, trade negotiations, defense treaties ... there is the logic in excluding the foreign born, regardless of parentage.