“I suggest you acquaint yourself with SCOTUS cases such Wong Kim Ark”
Wong Kim Ark was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents and domiciled in the US.
WKA was NEVER affirmed a natural born citizen.
If Obama was born in Hawaii..it does not matter. His alleged father was not a permanent resident.
WKA was declared a natural born citizen because of his birth in the USA, not because his parents were permanent residents of the US. Even if his parents had maintained a residence in the US, but had birthed WKA in a foreign country, WKA would not have been a citizen, without going through the naturalization process. The key, most important fact was the fact he was born in the USA.
WKA’s parents were permanent residents and domiciled in the USA at the time of his birth, as was Obama’s parents at the time of his birth. WKA’s parents later returned to their native country when WKA was a child and so did Obama’s father. In fact, WKA was returning from his 2nd trip to China visiting his parents when he was detained by Customs which resulted in the Landmark SCOTUS case.
If you read WKA and it's progeny, you will discover that ALL courts in the past century have ruled that if you are born in the USA (and not a child of a foreign diplomat) you are a NBC. Just look at the case that was cited by edge777 to begin this thread. The child's father was an illegal alien and the court found the child to a nbc. Just the fact that you have a nbc child will not be grounds to prevent deportation of an illegal alein, but the child cannot be forcibly deported. The case is just one more illustration of the application of WKA and the jus soli doctrine in defining natural born citizenship.
Another case that should be of interest to you and others is the Ankeny v. Daniels case that arose out of the 2008 election. The case is right on point since the issue presented to the court by the plaintiffs was whether person could be a nbc if one of his parents was not a citizen even though he was born in the USA. The court held that such a person was a nbc and eligible to be President. What should be of interest to is that The court specifically rejected the argument of the plaintiffs that the issue was controlled by the Vattel definition and instead used the precedence, language and guidance of WKA in making their ruling. This is very representative of jurisprudence on the issue of nbc for the past 100 years, and nothing is going to change that short of a Constitutional Amendment.
You really need to stop posting misleading statements and falsehoods regarding nbc that only are an attempt to confuse the issue and hinder our chances to recapture the White House next year when there is strong likelihood that either Rubio or Jindal will be on the Republican ticket. Talk about this completely bogus theory needs to end so as to not become an issue in 2012.