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.
If there is no dispute, and both mother and father figure they are the parents, and the State Department doesn't suspect something, then there is no establishment of an actual blood relationship required and the names go on the BC and then they are the “legal” parents, even if later a DNA test shows that the father isn't really the father.
I believe a legitimate argument for two citizen parents AND born in the country could be made, but I am not a proponent.
In natural law, birth allegiance is through either soil or blood. In recognition of this natural law, US law gives citizenship at birth to all born on the soil, and almost all born to U.S. citizen parents. Now the most ironclad, no question about it, “natural born citizen” would meet both requirements - but is it necessary to qualify under both?
Well, in 2008 we had both major parties run candidates who only qualified for US citizenship at birth from ONE of the two categories. McCain only through blood, and 0bama only through place of birth (his mother being too young according to the law at the time).
I think that, as US law contemplates two, and only two - ways of becoming a citizen - that there are correspondingly only two types of US citizenship.
Either one is born a citizen and thus a natural born citizen (IMHO) or one is “naturalized” as a citizen.
As such a “natural born citizen” would be one who, according to natural law (which US law should manifest) was a citizen at birth.
That was my opinion from a long time ago, and have seen no legal reasoning yet that has convinced me otherwise.
But yes, that discussion is a bit tangential to the “Give us the Birth Certificate (Long Form)” argument. And most don't like them mentioned too close to each other because it steals the thunder from the .... “For $20 he could make this all go away” histrionics. Because most birthers have moved on from the BC arguments entirely and now argue that there is no possibility of him being a NBC because of who his father is.
Those people SHOULD like my argument (but probably don't), because even if a US citizen like Malcolm X or Franklin M. Davis are the father, it wouldn't matter because a foreign national was the “legal” father.