The only alternative would be that someone would have to be born on this soil to be considered “natural born†So if say you went on vacation abroad or down to Tijuana for a weekend and your wife gave birth you would have to have your child “naturalized’†because they wouldn’t be considered “natural bornâ€
That’s ridiculous on it’s face. And what makes this entire discussion rather silly.
The Constitution gave Congress the authority over naturalization.
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.... Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
All Citizens are either 'natural born' or 'naturalized'. Congress has written laws governing naturalization. 'Naturalization' is not a process that one goes through which requires a test, and ends with an oath, it means to be granted Citizenship by a man made law (according to the Constitution, an act of Congress), and not by natural law.
If my pregnant wife leaves the country, and my child is born in a foreign country, my child will automatically become a US citizen, because Congress has included that situation in it's "Rule of Naturalization". My child would be a naturalized US citizen, and not a natural born US citizen. He/she will have all the same benefits as any other Citizen, EXCEPT for being eligible to run for the office of President.
Bears repeating:
“Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.”
This precedes your court case by some 100 years and certainly illustrates with clarity the mindset of the framers concerning this very issue..