“Read the Nyugen vs INS case for a thorough discussion of this about a man born in 1969 to a US citizen father and foreign mother.”
You are correct regarding that case, but the case specifically designates a difference in if the FATHER was a US citizen or the MOTHER was a US Citizen.
The difference is a BIG difference because there is not usually a doubt of the mother based on being present at the birth and ability to call on witnesses of the birth. However being a father, there is no proof of paternity except in a DNA/Paternity suit.
The reason the MARRAIGE was an issue in the Nyugen case is because being married automatically establishes paternity. How many child support cases have we seen where the father has to pay child support for a child that isn’t biologically his, but because he was married to the mother, he IS the LEGAL father.
In the case of Obama, his MOTHER was the citizen and there is no requirement or need for a marraige to have taken place because the issue is settled legally on his MOTHER being a US Citizen.
I hope that this makes sense and I apologize for getting snippy Rummy Chick.
The law discusses the immigration law. There is a different standard for out of wedlock fathers versus mothers. It upheld the different standard.
You are missing the point.
Obama’s mother was not wed. The marriage was Void Ab Inition. Therefore, the out of wedlock provision applies unless you can find another law that protects poor baby from Lying Bigamist daddy.
1 year residency requirement.
Ann meets it.