I thought I'd read all the citizenship arguments here, but this is a new one. Are you claiming that 16-year-olds are not citizens, no matter where they were born or who their parents were? And that since they can't transfer citizenship they don't have, all the children of teenage parents in this country are not citizens? If Bristol Palin's son had been born two months earlier, he would not have been an American citizen, much less a natural born one? Do they suddenly become citizens when their parents reach the age of consent (whatever that is--does it vary by state?), or are they never citizens unless they get naturalized?
Do you have any support at all for this idea?
What are the prerogatives of citizenship?
Do children have any specific rights of citizenship? They have no rights in court, no ownership rights, are not able to work, cannot open a bank account, cannot marry, cannot serve in the military and on and on. By law children are wards. They have no rights of citizenship. They are not recognized as citizens until they reach an age of consent. This varies state to state but is generally reecognized as 18.
Technically a child born of a child can never achieve citizenship because they are not born of a citizen. This hole in the law is routinely ignored as impractical. It is nevertheless the case that for the highest office in the land there should be no shadow on citizenship. Obama’s citizenship is not clouded. It is nonexistent.