But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.
Based on what? There is no U.S. law that states that a child born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent is even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.
The problem Obama has is that any claim to U.S. citizenship he thinks he has is clouded by his non-citizen father's temporary stay status in the U.S.
The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to him. Neither does the 14th Amendment as he and the DNC have already admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) his citizenship status at birth.
Yes, there is. The same American common law that makes a child born in the US to two citizen parents a citizen.
Our Founders did not rely on a statute to set the standard for natural born citizenship. Which means they didn't pass a law defining that the child born on US soil of two citizen parents was a citizen, either.
That was set by the rule of American common law.
And by the rule, which is an ancient rule that we adopted, the child born on the soil of the country, whether of two citizen parents, one citizen parent, or NO citizen parents (with very limited exceptions for the latter) was ALWAYS a natural born subject or citizen.
This is not in dispute by anybody except people who post on web sites, who simply don't like the current President and consequently DON'T LIKE the actual RULE that our Founders set up.
But historically legally, there is no case here, WHATSOEVER.
It doesn't matter whether you like it. It doesn't matter whether I like it. That's how the Founders and Framers and their generation set things up, and that is the simple fact.
The problem Obama has is that any claim to U.S. citizenship he thinks he has is clouded by his non-citizen father's temporary stay status in the U.S.
That's simply not true. Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.
Again, you or I might WISH that it did. But it's just not the case. Real conservatives accept the law as it is. They don't twist the Constitution and our history to argue that the law is something that it isn't.
The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to him. Neither does the 14th Amendment as he and the DNC have already admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) his citizenship status at birth.
Legally speaking, it doesn't matter one whit what they "admitted." They could have stated that he was born in Moscow, a citizen of the USSR, and unless it was actually true, it wouldn't matter one bit.
As for dual citizenship, again, legally speaking it doesn't matter. 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, WHILE serving as President. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.
Whether another country grants a person citizenship or not is irrelevant. There is no provision for someone to "lose" their natural born US citizenship simply because another nation said they were born a citizen of that nation as well.
The United States is ruled by United States law, not the law of France or the UK or Kenya.
You can say that's sad. Fine. Thne it's sad, but true.
Continuing to make unconstitutional claims doesn't get us anywhere except having a reputation for being kooks.