In other words, the foreign national woman (maternity rarely, if ever, being in doubt) who says her baby has an American daddy must establish a blood relationship if the American “daddy” disputes paternity.
In this case the blood relationship to an American citizen is with his mother.
In this case there was no dispute as to citizenship based upon paternity. He would be a US citizen at birth in Hawaii no matter who his father was.
And there was no dispute as to paternity. 0bama Sr. was apparently all for signing on that he was 0bama’s father.
10% of children are not related to the man they think is their father. I bring this up not just for the purposes of discussing 0bama, but also to impress upon each and every male FReeper out there to not EVER sign on as the father unless the DNA says you are the father (if you are married, DNA, again, doesn't matter - your wife's children are legally your children, even if they are not).
I don’t disagree with your position. I was originally responding to your comment that ...
“Who the ‘DNA father’ is doesn’t make on bit of difference according to the law. The law doesn’t care about biology, the law cares about legal paperwork.”
... by adding the caveat that DNA does matter in citizenship claims.
Yes, Obama is a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth to an American citizen mother. Personally, I believe there is a legitimate argument for the requirement of two American citizen parents in order for a child to be a natural born citizen for Constitutional purposes. But that’s a discussion for another time and I could be convinced otherwise if the SCOTUS were to rule that only one citizen parent is required to be a NBC.