US military hospitals provide certification of births but those are not legal birth certificates. Your parent executed a Report of Birth Abroad of an American Citizen and the US State Department issued a Certificate of Citizenship. Some countries do require a local birth certificate be issued also. In my case, my parents reported my birth to both the US Embassy and to the appropriate office in Germany, thus getting me both the US Certificate of Citizenship and a West German birth certificate.
Are you sure you obtained citizenship of the other country by being born in its territory? Not all countries grant citizenship for that reason. Germany, for example, does not (however, there may be some exceptions to that). So, while I was born in Germany to US citizens there on military orders, I am not and never have been a German citizen.
I just wanted to add that if this were indeed the case, it would make it very easy for other countries to throw US elections. If, say, the Republic of Fuzzbuckistan were to take a disliking to a particular candidate for US president, all they would have to do is confer citizenship upon that person, thereby making her ineligible.
And interestingly, even a written declaration (e.g. “I hereby renounce my U.S. citizenship, and intend to do so.”) will not be considered conclusive proof that you intended to renounce your citizenship. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980). The barriers to renouncing your U.S. citizenship are remarkably high; once they’ve got you, they don’t want to let you go.
“Natural born citizen” appears to mean “citizen by right of birth” – either jus soli or jus sanguinis – as opposed to “citizen by act of naturalization”.
Um, I believe it’s clear that the Canal Zone, like a U.S. military base, is land leased at the government level from another government. In other words, just as your leasing Blackacre to Smith for a term of years does not void your fee simple title to the land at the end of that lease, so Panama (and similarly nation-states leasing land for mlitary bases) retained underlying sovereignty over the Canal Zone (and those bases), but ceded administration of it/them to the U.S. for a term of years.
Appears to whom? As was hashed out at great length in this thread (largely between you and me), there is no settled meaning of the term. Has there been some Supreme Court ruling in the last three months that has interpreted the Constitution on this matter?
The 1904 agreement can certainly be characterized as a lease, but that characterization by itself is not determinative of the sort of legal issues that we’re discussing in this thread. In the lease of Guantanamo Bay, for instance, the US assumed control but Cuba retained sovereignty, whereas in the 1904 treaty with Panama, the US assumed control and all rights that it would have if it were sovereign, and the treaty specifically stated that any exercise of sovereignty by Panama was entirely excluded.
(Note too that Gitmo and the Canal Zone were always treated completely differently in terms of the applicability of US law. The Canal Zone was always considered to be within the scope of US law, to the point where a federal court was established there. By contrast, successive administrations took the position that Gitmo was outside the reach of the US Constitution, a position that prevailed in the lower courts until the Supreme Court recently rejected it.)
Is affording Panamanian citizenship to persons born in the Canal Zone an exercise of sovereignty, such that it was forbidden by the 1904 treaty? Like I said, I don’t know what Panamanian law says. But the fact that the US extended US citizenship to those persons, coupled with the fact that US law does not recognize dual citizenship, suggests that the US would not recognize persons born there as Panamanian citizens.