That depends on the definition of "indeterminate" and "natural born". If it means recognized as a citizen from birth without a naturalization process, then that applies regardless of place of birth or timing of recognition, e.g. American parents on the moon.
If there is a legal clarification of the term "natural born" to be restrictive to geographical birth, then the term is more restrictive.
No doubt your underlying premise is the use of "natural born" in the Constitution. Interestingly, none of the Founders were born within a United States of America, but their birth rite was grandfathered in.
What exactly is your point of contention; the Obama birth right? If he was foreign born with a foreign parent and declared foreign citizenship before U.S. citizenship, he has some clear challenges concerning meeting the qualification of "natural born".
Ah, but we are speaking of foreign parents, and restricting the argument for citizenship to be that of being born over American territory. The jus soli (or 14th amendment misreaders) argue that the only thing necessary for a person to be a "natural born citizen" is birth within the borders. My example is put forth to demonstrate how silly of a standard is this.
If there is a legal clarification of the term "natural born" to be restrictive to geographical birth, then the term is more restrictive.
There are those that argue that parents are irrelevant to the citizenship of a child born within the borders of the United States. They claim that anyone born within it's borders are "natural born citizens" just BECAUSE they were born within the borders.
No doubt your underlying premise is the use of "natural born" in the Constitution. Interestingly, none of the Founders were born within a United States of America, but their birth rite was grandfathered in.
As there could be no "natural born citizens" until the nation existed, they had no other choice.
What exactly is your point of contention; the Obama birth right? If he was foreign born with a foreign parent and declared foreign citizenship before U.S. citizenship, he has some clear challenges concerning meeting the qualification of "natural born".
I like to break things down into small clearly defined pieces and go from there. I am trying to demonstrate that birth within the borders of a nation is a foolish standard for declaring someone a citizen. It was used under English Common law because it gave the King an excuse to claim more servants. It was used under the 14th amendment (with qualifications which everyone seems to ignore) because former slaves had no jus sanguinus claim on citizenship.