I see what you are trying to say but it is two different circumstances. In order for a child to be considered a citizen at birth, there must be an immediate connection to the United States. Example 1: One or both parents are citizens and the child is born in the US (or US territory), the child is a US citizen. Example 2: Child is born outside of US or US territory but at least one parent is a US citizen. The Child MAY be considered a citizen depending on the age and previous residency of the citizen parent in the US. (Ted Cruz, mom was a citizen, of age and had lived in the US the required number of years. He was then considered born a citizen of the US) Example 3: Child is born in the US and neither parent are US citizens. As the law currently reads, that child would also be considered a citizen at birth. There is NOT an example or scenario where a non-citizen of the US has a child outside of the US or US Territory where that child would be BORN a US citizen.
You really want to keep going down that slippery slope? Before Obama, the expectation was born in the US, two citizen parents. Obama got a “pass” because of reverse discrimination. You really want to turn one bad situation into a precedent of ignoring the law as it has been enforced in the past?
True, but a citizen by statute...not natural born. Why oh why can’t some court take it upon itself to render a judgment? Because they are terrified if it rules on “Natural born” as the only route to running for President, it will take down Obummer’s house of cards and make many people who were complicit (Pelosi, Hawaii, etc.) chargeable.