The statute in place at the time of Obama’s birth is available to you on this thread. Comprehension of the law is something you’ll have to work on yourself. I can read and understand what I’m reading. I feel for you that you cannot. At this point I’ve done all I can for you. Good luck.
Your original claim: "People that equate Cruz’s parentage and birth with Obama’s parentage and birth don’t understand the law. Birth location is not the issue. By law Cruz’s mother’s American citizenship transferred to Cruz. By law Obama’s mother’s citizenship did not."
There is your claim, that "birth location is not the issue" (that is whether or not he was born in the USA) that there is some law in effect at the time that prevented Obama for getting citizenship, despite being born in Hawaii.
My counter-claim is: that birth location is decisive in determining citizenship, regardless of parents nationality or age. So, if you want to claim that Obama did not have American citizenship at birth, as you do, you MUST begin that claim by asserting your belief that he was born outside the USA.
You then arrogantly and repeatedly tell me to read the law which is posted on this thread. "You’re not reading all the words. Birthplace has nothing to do with this. The fact that one parent was a foreigner changes how citizenship is conferred. The actual statue in place at the time of his birth is on this thread. Try reading it - all of it - in full.
OK, here is the first line of the law, which describes what the law concerns:
“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” before Nov. 14, 1986 ... etc.See, there it is! All those complicated rules about 5 years and 10 years apply for "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United State".
If you believe Obama's claim to Hawaiian birth then nothing that follows in that law has anything to do with him.
It' doesn't matter how long she lived in the USA continuously, etc.
And again, my counter example: All day every day woman fly, drive and walk into the USA at seven, eight and nine months pregnant to have their baby here SO THAT THEIR CHILD WILL BE A US CITIZEN!
You can't seriously believe that there is some weird combination of travel and foreign residence that an American citizen could undertake that would (somehow) result in their child, born in USA, not gaining citizenship while the woman in the room next to them who is a Mexican citizen who's been here for a month can somehow give citizenship to her kid. Nope. By virtue of the child being born in a hospital in the USA that child is a citizen.
You are the one who can't read, or comprehend, or apparently explain things or admit mistakes. Oh well.
There are still arguments to be made about whether mere citizenship at birth confers one with the "Natural Born Citizen" status that is a requirement of the Constitution for holding the office of POTUS. But that's not what you have been asserting. You have been asserting that even if Barry was born in Hawaii he's not a citizen.
That's a ridiculous claim and one that makes us all look foolish. Which is why I've spent too much time debunking it.
PS: I apologize for my multiple postings. I have that trouble posting from my smart-phone sometimes.