The statute confers natural born status to a male person born abroad.
And the Statute says no such thing. It confers natural born status to persons born abroad, male AND female. Adding restrictions to the Statute as written isn't really an honest representation of the Statute, is it?
You may think it's sophistry, but I think it's an important distinction and clarification to make. We cannot add or subtract words from what was written, for it changes the meaning in significant ways.
So, I stand by my point: you claim that it confers natural born status to a male person born abroad. On the contrary, it confers natural born status to ANYONE born abroad. A pretty big difference in who is covered, don't you think?
Huge. And it would matter if that was the point of debate. But the point was addressing a contention of yours that focuses attention on the father/male side of a citizenship determination.
... the Statute does not explicitly require both parents to be citizens, but is explicit that your father must have been a resident. This would lead one to logically conclude that either parent being a citizen is sufficient, as long as the father at least legally resided within the US.