In fact the issue has been out there for many years.
First public attention I know of was during his campaign for the Senate in 2004.
At that time, the fairy tale about Stanley as the mother and Senior as the father, was the generally accepted legend. However his published biography's recited his birth in Kenya and he went around to coffee hours telling people he was born in Kenya.
The Republican candidate, Allan Kane, properly pointed out that as the legend recited, his birth in Kenya to a US Citizen mother under the age of 18 and her husband, a non US Citizen, would not make Zero a citizen of the US at birth and since there was no other record of his citizenship on record, he was not a citizen and therefore not eligible to the office of United States Senator from Illinois.
There was also gossip in that time frame of which I do not know the origin, that zero was in fact not the child of Senior but instead the child of a prominent Islamic racist Anti-US revolutionary.
Having made some effort to look behind the gossip, I have concluded that you reach a blank wall in looking for the origin of that story. It looks to me as though that gossip was out there, probably as early as the mid-90's.
As to his eligibility to the office of President, and having had some extensive experience, not only as a Constitutional Lawyer but also on the specific issue of Article II, Sec. 1 eligibility, I am of the fairly firm view that the only applicable Constitutional eligibility issue is his birthplace--if he was born within the geographical territory of the US, he is eligible; if he was born outside the geographical territory of the US, he is not eligible.
It should be noted however that his purported prominent Islamic racist Anti-US revolutionary father was a multi generational US Citizen also born in the United States. It is still my opinion that if he was born outside the United States, he is not eligible.
I do not think the entire Indonesian Citizenship argument here is particularly relevant--even if these events affect his US status, if he is a citizen now and was born in the US, he is still eligible.
Having looked at the reams of evidentiary material with respect to his birth, it does not appear to me that he is the person who was born in Kenya.
Thanx
“I do not think the entire Indonesian Citizenship argument here is particularly relevant—even if these events affect his US status, if he is a citizen now and was born in the US, he is still eligible. “
So ‘born in the borders of the US equals eligible for POTUS’ regardless of events after a single event.
Many subscribe that. And it appears to provide comfort to those who want to ignore the potential issue.
But is it accurate?
The debate of the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’, the discussions of jus soli and jus sanguinis, the difference between natural born Citizen and natural born subject, etc. etc. It can make anyone’s head hurt thinking about it.
But ignoring all that it seems clear that any point in time a person can be considered a natural born Citizen OR a naturalized citizen. Both are citizens and have full rights. One is eligble, one is not.
Without a doubt article II prohibits NATURALIZED citizens from being eligible. Or at least that seems to be a logical path of understanding.
If someone is formally naturalized via a formal naturalization process it should be clear they are not eligble. Hence why Arnold is not eligible. He IS a naturalized citizen.
If Sven is correct or close to correct then you have naturalized citizen as POTUS. It would seem relevant. May a court or SCOTUS would rule to agree with the premise stated above. Who knows at this point.
But if a someone, ANYONE, was shown to be naturalized and then rose to POTUS it would cause rethinking the entire history of Article II, Section 1, its meaning and its application in the future. And because of that this the facts for the current situation should be understood.