Although Minor v. Happersett is a very important case, I have been trying to read all the posts, and have yet to see another integral case not mentioned:
Elk v. Wilkins (1884)
John Elk was an American Indian born on US soil, who was born on an Indian reservation, then moved to non-Indian terriroty in Nebraska. He renounced his tribal allegiance, and when he registered to vote, was turned down by Charles Wilkins, Registrar of voters.
“Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.[2] Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Based on this case, Obama does not qualify under the citizenship test, much less natural born citizen, since he did not owe “direct and immediate allegiance” and completely subject to the United States due to his dual citizenship. Therefore, under the allegiance test at birth, Obama does not qualify.
Also understand, Obama at one time had citizenship in four countries (US, Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia). He lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 21, but, according to the British Ntionality At of 1948, once a British subject, always a British subject, meaning you never lose British citizenship unless formally renounced. Obama still may have Indonesian citizenship as well.
Thank you, very interesting.