“I guess what makes sense to me is the example of a child of a U.S ambassador to a foreign country who is born in that foreign county. I would think that child would be considered a “natural born citizen.”
Yes, but only because ancient law and the ancient law of England said the children of Royalty, diplomats, and others sojourning in the foreign domain of a foreign sovereign were under the protection of diplomatic immunity and therefore were not subject to the requirement of local allegiance to the foreign sovereign. They, instead, remained under the allegiance to their own sovereign, despite their presence in the foreign domain. Prior to the English Naturalization Act of 1541, common English subjects born or present in a foreign domain were subject to a temporary and local allegiance to the foreign sovereign as what is described as an alien in amity (an alien in friendship). Such a child was born an alien to England and was not accepted by England as an English subject or with a duty of allegiance to the English sovereign. The English Naturalization Act of 1541 changed that situation by granting persons born abroad in a foreign sovereignty certain but not all of the rights of an English subject, provided such conditions as having an English father were met. Nonetheless, such a person was still alien born and naturalized at birth in a way that would be regarded as a natural born subject in some but not all respects.
New tagline.
Wait, had to add one word ...