Difference there is in international waters a child would be born without a country. Good thing Maritime law would most likely provide that the ship registry controls citizenship.
‘Good thing Maritime law would most likely provide that the ship registry controls citizenship.’
And military bases and embassies. But a US female tourist should not fear her child being born overseas. This should somehow be amended. And congess and state legislatures should be able to agree that so-and-so is patriotic enough to be eligible. Even if it takes a super-majority vote.
No, that's the point - In such a case, citizenship is inferred from the parent, and does not normally follow the country of the ship. Especially before modern medicine, when a birth cert was a pretty optional thing.
My point in raising the question is that such a case is a long standing exception to the rule. And rightly so - It would be absurd to say the child was not native born because he was born in transit. Thus the reason for the exceptions. Thus the reason for the further definition by statute. Such a child IS Natural Born.
Change the condition: Late 1800s: A child is born to US parents on Canadian ground in transit between the states and Alaska. What's the difference? Same thing. There are obvious exceptions to 'Born on the Soil'.