When we were researching the state of the law back before this Thomas v. Lynch, which appears to be a mere circuit court decision, the state of Supreme Court decisions was that military service was in furtherance of the service at the behest of national interests and that covered births off shore for all citizenship purposes for military service. It's likely the circuit court is in error for military citizens giving birth on military bases but not for citizens of other nations doing so. Such a decision is also likely only binding on its circuit.
However, the Thomas case may be different in specifics. . . Looking at it, the plaintiff claimed Jamaican citizenship on entry to the US. The claim of US citizenship seems to be an ad hoc claim to avoid deportation. I will be interested in seeing if this ever goes further. I can see the argument that mere birth on a military base is not grounds for granting citizenship as is the idiotic birth within the borders of the US which itself is based on the minority position dicta that got us the anchor baby mess from a Supreme Court decision which the MINORITY lost. In other words, the anchor baby policy is not even based in legitimate case law, arising instead from minority commentary of what the losing side would have liked the law to be.
The actual logic that held that the children of people who were SERVING the national interest of the United States should not be handicapped by being made second class citizens in their political potential is unassailable. Making service to our country more onerous is not in the national interest. Nor does it make any logical sense to claim that because a childs' parents were serving in the military, putting their lives at stake, should somehow abrogates a child's allegiance to the nation for purposes of being elected president. it should, in fact, strengthen that allegiance.
However to extend the illogical, magical ability to bestow citizenship to anyone born on American soil to the soil of an American Military base is completely insane. There I completely agree with the appellate court.
1. Lots of people are glossing over the fact that Sessions appointed a US Attorney (Huber) to work in tandem with Horowitz. I don’t recall (please help me find it if it exists) another time in history where an Inspector General was assigned a prosecutor. I’d love to find one. @Tracybeanz
-- ... the state of Supreme Court decisions was that military service was in furtherance of the service at the behest of national interests and that covered births off shore for all citizenship purposes for military service. --
The question isn't citizenship. On the "plain citizenship" question, if either parent is a US citizen meeting US residency, etc. requirements, then statutes assign citizenship at birth. Military service is not required and has nothing to do with it.
If you have a SCOTUS case that differentiates US base as 14th amendment US soil, or that finds servicepeople are treated the same as diplomats, I'll change my opinion.
-- The actual logic that held that the children of people who were SERVING the national interest of the United States should not be handicapped by being made second class citizens in their political potential is unassailable. --
That "second hand citizen" line is a canard. It pops up often, but fact of the matter is that a naturilized citizen hass all the rights of one born a citizen, save for eligibility for the presidency.