I don’t agree. Even if he’s born in Hawaii, he’s still not eligible to be conferred citizenship by his child-mother. And his supposed father was a British subject.
The Courts have not agreed with that position in more than 70 attempts including 8 at the US Supreme Court:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
The Courts have not agreed with that position in more than 70 attempts including 8 at the US Supreme Court: Before I, yet-yet again-again, research and piece together why he's illegal, I'd need some money from you. I'm tired of having to answer this stuff.
Any fellow FReepers want to step in?