>No. As I understand it he was born in another hospital in Panama City — not the military hospital. That was the whole problem.<
Not looking for a constitutional argument, but will state one thing. It has been pretty well established and seems rightly so that the founders would not have wanted to exclude NBC from a child who’s parents were serving the United States at the time in the form of service.
So even back in the day, should a child have been born overseas in a foreign land as long as both parents were citizens - it stands to reason that they would have brought the child up with allegiance to the USA.
that was the intent of the NBC clause. That parents have allegiance and raise the child to have the same.
If he was born in a tent in eastern mongolia - as long as the parents were both citizens and serving the USA in an official capacity, it stands to reason that the founders wouldn’t have cared.
Wouldn’t have cared and the Law are two different things.
Either the law is the law, or we have total chaos.