Of course there is no such case or authority. The difference only matters in qualification for the office of President. That issue has not been adjudicated. Although there is dicta and citations indicating that such a difference exits.
From "Wong Kim Ark". . .
I am reluctant to get very far into this with you since I doubt your good faith.
As a matter of fact, it looks to me generally as though most of the people who are arguing that we look at the issue on the basis of something other than place of birth are doing so to frame the appellate issue on that basis--so that an appellate decision holding that in fact, these secondary citizenship factors are irrelevant in a case in which place of birth is not the issue would constitute authority in favor of upholding Obama's citizenship.
As you well know, Wong Kim Ark has nothing to do with the issue. Wong was born in the United States and the decision is in fact a primary holding that deficiencies in the Vitel citizenship base are irrelevant to the issue after adoption of the 14th Amendment. This case is a primary 14th Amendment Citizenship decision.
I don't see anything there that would give a plaintiff hope that an Obama type, born in the US without a U S Parentage citizenship base could be held not a citizen for any purpose.
So I see your post as just another false flag distraction from the main point which is that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
Yes it is, but it had nothing to do, directly, with natural born citizenship. The question as stated in the decision was: Is Wong Kim Ark, born in the US of Chinese parents legally in the US, a citizen. The answer was yes, under the 14th amendment.
Does there just need to be single avenue? If you set up for only place of birth you run the risk that there will be faked documentation, or that he really was born in Hawaii, with a non-citizen, not even permanent resident, father. But if you go after the total definition, you get to both the place of birth and parentage questions. Much historical research of the founding period indicates that Natural Born Citizen then meant, born in the country of parents who were citizens. That definition has never been tested in a case where it mattered.
I don't see anything there that would give a plaintiff hope that an Obama type, born in the US without a U S Parentage citizenship base could be held not a citizen for any purpose.
I guess you are saying it's all or nothing? You would make no distinction between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen, at least in cases where the birth was in the US?
We know that persons who are citizens at birth, even though born outside the country with citizen parent or parents, due to various statues do not fall under the same legal umbrella as those born in the US, and their rights and privileges may even depend on which parent was a US citizen. Why can there not be distinctions between classifications of native born citizens?
But please, don't doubt my sincerity. Refute me if you will, but not that.
Since he was dropped from SAD’s Passport application (Stanley Ann Soetoro?), the possibility is that he is still an Indonesian citizen and an illegal alien???