[precisionshootist]

"Since 1868 there are only two types of U.S. citizenship: born and naturalized. And I have one, too. That’s also allowed, right? My theory doesn't necessarily conflict with yours, if you accept mine along with yours. My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. Using the common understanding of the terms at the time, and coupling this with the intent stated in the Preamble that the Constitution was established to secure liberty to the People and their Posterity, it makes sense that the Frames meant the Presidency only for the Posterity of We the People. This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen. That's my theory. Don't bother with the retort of getting a court to agree with me. No court post-Obama ever would. Who knows what a pre-Obama court might have done. -PJ "

Totally agree. Natural Born Citizen is the level of purity of citizenship not a "type" of citizenship. Also the historical record for the definition of NBC is born to two citizen parents.

People keep looking for laws and court cases to support a completely illogical position. Someone born of one citizen parent on foreign soil or someone born and raised by two citizen parents in Dallas Texas are clearly not the same thing. Both are citizens at birth but not even close to the same level of purity.

[Nero Germanicus]

It would have been nice if Congress or the judiciary had ever agreed with your opinion.
Instead they have agreed with the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark:
“[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’”

Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo