I agree that there is a need for that - if only to stop the ignorant bickering over the point.
Quite likely - but that would take time and money, and UNTIL THE APPEAL HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL the child would not be admissible to the United States of America AS AN AMERICAN.
(If the child had been born in Canada, then the child could enter the US as a CANADIAN VISITOR as long as the child's parents could prove that they had the child's parent's permission to bring the child into the United States of America -which, although it sounds silly, would require that the child's parents prove that they were, in fact, the child's parents. And, if the CBP personnel decided NOT to accept that the people presenting as the child's parents were, in fact, the child's parents, then the CBP personnel could ban the child from entering the United States of America AND THERE IS NO APPEAL from that ban.)
That is the state of the law today.
Not quite, you missed the "providing that the parents actually applied in the requisite manner and met the criteria for approval.
Let me give you an example where the child would NOT be an American citizen even though BOTH parents were "natural born" American citizens.
The child's mother is born in Boston and moves, with her "natural born" American citizen parents, to Ottawa when she is two years old.
The child's father is born in Seattle and moves, with his "natural born" American citizen parents, to Vancouver when he is two years old.
The child's father and mother spend the rest of their lives in Canada, but meet, and get married in Moose Jaw SK when they are both 20 years old.
Two years later, the child is born in Medicine Bend AB.
That child would NOT, regardless of the fact that BOTH parents were "natural born" American citizens, qualify for American citizenship.
See above - no "semantics" there.
That's not quite the case. The lawyers don't use the subtle issues to make money, they use the fact that someone else wants to dispute the subtle issues in order that they can make money for themselves.
[ASIDE - I was once consulted by a potential client who wanted to sue someone over a small debt "as a matter of principle". There was no doubt that the debt existed and that the debtor simply wasn't going to pay. However, I thought that the client could put their money to better use, so I told that that "If you deposit [an amount equal to the debt PLUS a substantial sum] I will absolutely guarantee to have a cheque for [an amount equal to the debt] ready for you to pick up within 72 hours of your deposit cheque clearing your bank and the funds being deposited in mine.". The potential client was initially pleased, but then stopped and asked me how I could make that guarantee. So I told him. I said that the minute that I had the money in my hands I'd write him a cheque for the amount that the debtor owed him - the debtor's debt would be discharged and he would have won his "matter of principle". When he said that he'd be pretty stupid to agree to that arrangement, I had to agree with him - but that the net effect was going to be the same as if he had actually gone to court and won. I really don't know if he got some other lawyer to take his case, but I suspect that he got the point.
Now there we are in agreement - PROVIDED that you add "for some people who simply cannot read plain English and/or don't have a clue about how laws are interpreted by the courts".
