In my mind, whenever there's a grey area in interpreting the law, shouldn't it default to common sense, i.e. what a reasonable person would conclude? This is why we use phrases like "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the concept of a reasonable person (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person</a>) in law.<p>I realize this is a fun little exercise, but any reasonable observer in the scenario described would have to conclude that the baby should be an American citizen.
This article seems to incorrectly assume that if you are born in a country you will be a citizen of that country. In reality, most of the countries in the world don't grant citizenship to anyone born in their territory[1]. Outside of the Americas only a handful of countries do.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli</a>