Well, there's a detail in this quote that might be overlooked with your summary:
“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”
This appears to be applying to cases where the child is born outside the US, seemingly excluding cases in which a child was born on American soil.
No, you have to be familiar with 18th-century written style. There are two cases covered by the definition, the first one being "children of citizens of the United States", the second being the former conditioned by being "born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States." In both cases, the requirement is to be born of citizens of the United States. This just establishes that "natural-born" has nothing to do with geographic location.
Did you read the paragraph I cited? It refers to the point at issue (being born of U.S. citizens). A lot of people have the misunderstanding that someone born outside of U.S. territory cannot be a U.S. citizen, even though one or both parents are U.S. citizens. My cousin was born in France of a U.S. mother and a French father, but she is a U.S. citizen as well as a French citizen.
I did. Ambiguous wording has made it confusing, which is why I read the entirety of the article to gather more context clues. It specifically illustrates cases of people being born outside the US and still being qualified as natural born citizens
The article seems specifically for people like your cousin
Well, there's a detail in this quote that might be overlooked with your summary:
This appears to be applying to cases where the child is born outside the US, seemingly excluding cases in which a child was born on American soil.
No, you have to be familiar with 18th-century written style. There are two cases covered by the definition, the first one being "children of citizens of the United States", the second being the former conditioned by being "born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States." In both cases, the requirement is to be born of citizens of the United States. This just establishes that "natural-born" has nothing to do with geographic location.
Did you read the entire article you linked? I did. It exclusively continues to refer to situations where citizens are born outside the US borders.
Did you read the paragraph I cited? It refers to the point at issue (being born of U.S. citizens). A lot of people have the misunderstanding that someone born outside of U.S. territory cannot be a U.S. citizen, even though one or both parents are U.S. citizens. My cousin was born in France of a U.S. mother and a French father, but she is a U.S. citizen as well as a French citizen.
I did. Ambiguous wording has made it confusing, which is why I read the entirety of the article to gather more context clues. It specifically illustrates cases of people being born outside the US and still being qualified as natural born citizens
The article seems specifically for people like your cousin