I’m not in some sort of contest with you; I just find natural born—based upon the writings from the eras of our Constitution being written and by whom it was written, their comments on the subject—to mean two American citizen parents and born on American soil or territory (as in an embassy or military base rented lands). Changing the Constitution by fiat fits leftist fascist design, but it is anti-American in the main.
You’re right, we’re not in a contest—I apologize for using language that implied that we were.
Regarding your expanded definition of U.S. soil, federal law does not grant birthright citizenship to persons born in U.S. military bases abroad or in U.S. embassies or consulates. If a Cuban woman gives birth in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base to a baby whose father is also a non-citizen, then the baby would not be a U.S. citizen at birth under federal law, the same as if the baby had been born outside of the base. Same goes with an embassy—if a cleaning woman gives birth in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, the baby wouldn’t be a U.S. citizen. This is because while in conversation people use terms such as “U.S. soil” or “U.S. jurisdiction” to refer to embassies and military bases abroad, such places are legally part of the sovereign territory of the foreign nation surrounding them and the only “jurisdiction” that the U.S. has is what was given to us by treaty.
Of course, if what matters is whether or not a person is a U.S. citizen at birth, irrespective of where he was born, then it doesn’t matter whether the child of U.S. citizens was born in a hospital inside or outside of the U.S. military base, since he is a U.S. citizen at birth under federal law irrespective of where he was born.