You were asked to find a passage that declared Ark to be a natural born citizen. This passage doesn’t do that. It talks about the 14th amendment’s similarity to English common law on natural born subjects, but it goes on to say, “his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen’” And that is predicated on the condition, “so long as he remains within our territory.”
IOW, a child born in the United States to a foreign national, under the 14th amendment, is AS MUCH a citizen as an NBC, but it doesn’t say they are the same thing. Otherwise it would have only needed to say, ‘if born in the country, the child is a natural-born child of a citizen.’
As written in the former case, this makes a clear distinction between the two concepts of a citizen and natural born citizen. It’s like saying an apple is as much a piece of fruit as a watermelon, but we all know that an apple is NOT a watermelon. Thus, Obama is a fruit and is not a natural born citizen.
Trying desperately to ignore that “and if he hath issue here that issue is a natural born subject”?
And if he (Obama Sr) hath issue here (Obama) that issue is a natural born subject.
That is goes on to say that this issue is “as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen” does not imply that he is a differnt type of citizen, as you wish it to, nor does it break from the previous passage that found such issue to be a “natural born subject”.
That's the understatement of the year! LOL