I see you're helping him out by noting there is no such statute.
So what made such people citizens?
You can say it was "natural law." But there is certainly more than one possible understanding of what "natural law" is.
So there must be some tradition, some accepted rule, that is accepted in the legal circles of the society, that is a LEGAL basis.
That was the common law. And it was put in place, for the most part, because at some point in history a judge sat and made a decision, and that decision was taken as legal precedent.
In fact, the English understanding of natural law, upon which OUR principle of citizenship was based, came from the Bible. England was a Christian nation, and the rulers of that nation adopted the Biblical principle that God had set in place the kingdoms of the world, and one was obliged to be obedient to the lawful governmental authority that God had established.
By that understanding, NATURAL LAW meant that if you were born into a kingdom, or under a king, you were a member of that kingdom and obliged to be obedient to that king, as long as he gave directives that didn't violate divine law. Even if he was generally a bad king, you were still obliged to obey legitimate laws.
But you, and the other denialists, deny this natural-law based principle that we inherited in our law from our heritage as English colonies.
The United States is not England, Jeff.
Unlike the states, the United States does not proceed from a prior government. It is a new frame of government.
It is a new government founded on new ideas that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
Such principles are not found in English law. Anywhere.
Citizenship does not equate to natural born citizenship. Obama’s citizenship is dependent upon statute, stipulating to the latest version of his shifting narrative.
“there could be only one sovereign, Parliament, in the British empire” Blackstone
“there can be no such thing as a fully absolute sovereign” Vattel