“In my post, I was making the assumption that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was born as either a U.S. or a British (via Kenya) citizen, it hadn’t even occurred to me that he may have entered the world as both, so you raise an interesting point. This just gives the Supreme Court even more wiggle room to rule in favor of Obama should a case on the question of his citizenship ever reach their docket.”
***
Right. He was both at birth. I don’t think wiggle room is needed. If you’re natural born, that is, a citizen at birth, nothing can take that away from you except your specific request to give it up. Hundreds of natural born Americans are also citizens of the nations in which they were born—people born of at least one U.S. citizen parent in a location outside the United States.
You’ve done a pretty good job here of arguing your points, and it seems to me that you’ve argued your points on the merits alone, but I can’t help but be curious as to your political perspective (conservative, liberal, pro-Obama, anti-Obama etc.). After spending a fair amount of time looking into this, I have come to the same conclusion as you, I think Obama really is a natural born citizen of the United States, and that efforts to challenge him on his citizenship will be fruitless. I think the energy of those who oppose him could be channeled more effectively by challenging him on his ideas and policies. That’s the approach I favor anyway.
That is wholly incorrect. The class of person you are referring to are naturalized at birth, they are not natural-born citizens.
Hope this helps.