First, US Military Bases (not all) and Embassies in foreign countries are considered US sovereign land. The same applies to foreign countries embassies within the US, it is part of the agreement when establishing the embassy. So US military personnel or Ambassadors that have a child overseas on a US military installation (not all) or at an Embassy would be considered U.S. Citizens as if they were born here in the States.
A tourist who is a U.S. Citizen in a foreign country is required by statutes/law to report the birth to the U.S. Embassy/Consulate. This citizenship is granted by statute. Failure to file the required documents and/or failure to meet the requirements within the statutes could prevent the child from being recognized by the U.S. as a Citizen, and the child would have to become naturalized as a foreigner, albeit this is unlikely as a U.S. Citizen on vacation would likely meet all necessary requirements.
Nope.
In Rogers vs Bellei, natural-born citizenship can be REVOKED if the person failed to continuously live in the United States for a certain amount of years as a young person. YOU CANNOT REVOKE a status that didn't exist in the first place.
A tourist who is a U.S. Citizen in a foreign country is required by statutes/law to report the birth to the U.S. Embassy/Consulate.
__________________________________________________________
This is correct and there would have been a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) issued.
I do not understand why Cruz hasn’t released this to settle the matter.
My youngest was born in Okinawa when my husband was in the Air Force. We were required to report his birth to the embassy and we were given a CRBA that served as his birth certificate.