Only place in the statutory material you have posted there is any room for difference with the legal analysis I have set forth is here. So the issue is when Sec. 309(c) of the Immigration and Nationalization Act became effective--or with respect to what class of persons it is effective.
Sec. 309(c) was initially codified as 8 USC Sec. 1409. And the language was adopted at the time of the 1986 or 1988 Act. Similar language in earlier versions was applicable only to pre 1952 births and thus not to Obama.
I have given you the statutory material that clearly sets forth where the effective date is to be found; found that statute; and copied into the post the effective date which is persons born after November 1986 which makes it inapplicable to Obama.
Note also that would force him to admit that he was born outside and to rewrite the record of his parent's marriage.
And if we have misread or misapplied the effective date clause (and Sec. 309(c) is somehow retroactive to apply to Obama) which I have seen nothing yet that says we have, his claim to citizen ship arose not at the time of his birth but fifteen years later when Congress adopted Sec. 309(c) in its present form--thus he clearly was not by any remote interpretation a "natural born" citizen any more than Arnold Shwartznegger.
David, the case I cited is 1998, well after the 1986 act and the 1988 act.
You didn’t read it did you ?
Otherwise someone with your legal background would not continue to deny the fact that the law regarding unwed mothers precedes 1952.
You think the SC got there history wrong on the statute?