wrong the statutory law in effect at time of Obamas supposed birth if it was out of the US required his mother (if married) to have 5 years residency after age 14 which she did not so both of his parents would have had to be US citizens for him to be a citizen at birth.
Natual born citizen is a requirement for President of the US and does not mean statutorily born a citizen at birth (until decided by the US Supreme Court which they are avoiding)
Natual born citizen is a requirement for President of the US and does not mean statutorily born a citizen at birth (until decided by the US Supreme Court which they are avoiding)
Another aspect of this of which you may not be aware is that prior to 1924, Women could not transfer citizenship at all. It was the "Cable Act" of 1922 that first permitted women the ability to transfer citizenship. Prior to that point in History, ONLY the father could transfer citizenship.
Why does this matter? How can you argue that someone is a "natural citizen" (A term used in the constitution written in 1784) when they are only a citizen through an act of congress passed a over a hundred years later?
As I have pointed out countless times, the meaning of constitutional terms cannot be re-defined by subsequent acts of congress. The meaning of the term "right to bear arms" will not change if congress defines the word "arms" to mean rubber band guns. Likewise, Congress cannot create natural citizens. They can only naturalize people into being citizens.
If a citizen is only a citizen because of a subsequent act of congress, then they are NOT a "natural citizen". They are an artificially created citizen with the exact legal status (for article II purposes) as that of any other "naturalized" citizen.