Reducto ad absurdum.
If the stable was in the US or its territories, then the person is a US citizen by birth. If that stable was in Bethlehem, then the child born is a citizen of Israel - not the US.
Here's a direct, simple question for you: do you gain citizenship by being born on US soil? Simple yes or no answer is all that is required.
Reducto ad absurdum.
Yes, I have reduced your argument to it's absurd conclusions. You're welcome.
If the stable was in the US or its territories, then the person is a US citizen by birth. If that stable was in Bethlehem, then the child born is a citizen of Israel - not the US.
So a person doesn't become a citizen until it is born? Funny. Liberals argue that a "fetus" doesn't become a person until it is born. Pro-lifers argue that it's characteristics as both a citizen and a person are inherent in it's existence.
Here's a direct, simple question for you: do you gain citizenship by being born on US soil? Simple yes or no answer is all that is required.
No. Indians and Slaves were born on the soil and were yet not citizens. If being born on the soil was the rule, even ambassadors could not be exempt from it. The "Birth within boundaries" theory is simply an artificial man made doctrine completely disconnected from natural law.
What the silly people of the world don't seem to comprehend is that it is a left over from British Law of Subjugation. It was created to grab servants for the crown under any pretext, not for the benefits of those servants. England was alone in this doctrine. The Other nations of Europe (and indeed since Roman and Greek times) recognized children as being in the allegiance of their parents.