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.
Careful Jeff, your true purpose might slip out.
This claim is not supported by law. Remember, BHO II is not covered by WKA.
8 USC § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
You've been shown U.S. citizenship law. None of the cases apply to Obama, as he and the DNC have already publicly stated that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) Obama's citizenship status. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling also doesn't apply to Obama as his father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
But historically legally, there is no case here, WHATSOEVER.
If Obama were born before 1866, you might possibly be correct (would depend on the respective state law at the time - not all states granted citizenship at birth to a child born there to an alien father) but such isn't the case. There is in fact a very strong case here as Obama fails to meet any of federal law criteria to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
That's simply not true. Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.
Based on what? There is no federal law that states such.
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.
It actually IS true that Obama's status at birth was governed (exact quote) by the British Nationality Act of 1948 via his father. Read the Act. There is no wiggle room.
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.
Wow. Did you really just say that? How is it that you don't know that they were all eligible via the grandfather clause: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Whether another country grants a person citizenship or not is irrelevant.
It is QUITE relevant. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement, defined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record is "not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Obama owed allegiance to the UK at birth via the fact that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his citizenship status at birth.
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.
There is a very real question of whether Obama is even a U.S. citizen at all. He FAILS to meet any of the criteria of U.S. citizenship law, and the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to him.
The United States is ruled by United States law
You've already seen that U.S. citizenship law doesn't apply to Obama. He fails to meet the criteria.
Continuing to make unconstitutional claims...
Questioning Obama's citizenship status is QUITE Constitutional. Show me where in the Constitution Obama qualifies for U.S.citizenship.