You have a child born to parents from 2 different countries. They each hold citizenship in different countries. For the citizenship of the child born either in wedlock or out of wedlock, you have to go to International Private Law aka International Private Laws of Nations and you have to look also at the treaties between the countries at the time of the child's birth. At the time of Obama’s birth, England did not recognize SAD’s citizenship if the marriage was legit, thus Obama was born a Brit & nothing else. If the marriage records are fake & he was born a bastard, he is was born soley an American citizen aka a NBC. GET IT!!!!
... according to the laws of England. We’re discussing the laws of the United States, if you care to recall.
Who was the legally recognized father and what was the citizenship of that father, patlin?
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.
To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
This is quite interesting as the feudal law that the Brits had adopted served them well until they found themselves not in control of the land in which they found themselves living in, thus they had to revert back to some connection to the laws of nature that were still deeply rooted in the English common law. This allowed for the later expansion of birth by descent & not by land that was the original law of the land per the original English Constitution. And of course by the laws of nature which Blackstone quotes, a man can not owe 2 allegiances at the same time. He can not serve to 2 masters & thus the Americans entering the War of 1812. The Brits were refusing to acknowledge the US citizenship of naturalized former Brit subjects. The Brits recognized the part of natural law of citizenship by descent, but still refused to acknowledge the law of nature & the right of a person to change his station/domicil thus the Brits did not acknowledge to right of the person to throw off the old allegiance. The Expatriation Act of 1868 & subsequent treaty between the Brits & the US took care of that forever.