Were his parents citizens at his birth?
If not he is not a nbc
“the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.”
“born to a US citizen parent”...NBC requirement.
Wrong.
In Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court affirmed the framers’ originally intended meaning of “jurisdiction”. In both
cases, a child born on U.S. soil, of a foreign-citizen father, is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction at birth. Such a child is subject to the jurisdiction of the
foreign government to which the child’s father owes allegiance. Consequently, such a child is not a 14th Amendment citizen at birth .
Also.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), children born in the United States were divided into two groups: (a) U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents, and (b)
all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of
the first group [22].
In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States; her father
was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [23].
In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States; his father
was a native-born U.S. citizen; and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [24].
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the
United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to
someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.