First, Kent used ‘native born’ to discuss the requirements of the Constitution for the Presidency, equating it with natural born.
Second, your quote doesn’t show what you claim.
“(1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that” the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.” “
So the law of 1802 allowed the children of naturalized citizens to automatically become naturalized citizens. “It applies to all the children of “ persons duly naturalized,” under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent.”
That does not say in any way that a child of a mixed marriage (citizen & not) born in the USA is an alien. Nor has US law blindly followed assigning the citizenship of the father to the child - quite the contrary.
So you are left with your insults, which are a poor substitute for reasoning, and which is why you continue to FAIL every time you birthers bring the issue up with legislatures, state officials, Congress, the Courts, and avid conservatives like Rush, Coulter and Malkin.
stop right there, you can not make a claim like that without proof positive. Where did Kent ever say native - natural born. Until you do, you are merely twisting Kent’s words and thus proves you are an obot detractor.
Furthermore, the quote I provided, in which you conveniently left out Kent's reference to 25 Edw III & the statute of 4 Geo. II which stated that children born out of liegiance to fathers who were British subjects, were themselves British subjects and that law of 4 Geo. II was still in place when Obama was born in 1961, therefore, he was British at birth for purposes of A2S1C5 and census data dating back to 1790 proves it. A person was either a citizen at birth due to being born to citizen parentS or you were an alien born who wasn't considered a citizen until the parentS were naturalized or by an act upon coming of age, the child now an adult, took an oath of allegiance to the US.
OF ALIENS AND NATIVES.
We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives ; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.
And Kent on allegiance:
To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born, not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government.
you see, one can be born in a country and still NOT acquire the allegiance required to be a citizen. Birth alone does not equate to complete allegiance as required by the 14th Amendment.
Didn't you recently accuse me of name calling, huh???