It seems I may well be mistaken in that notion.
Apparently the term "natural-born" then applies to anyone born on US soil regardless of parentage or timing.
My own feeling in this regard is that if a child is born on this soil of two non-US citizens, then they should not be considered native-born, or natural-born (which two terms seem to be used interchangably), but perhaps naturalized.
If there is a single US citizen parent, then I believe that some qualifications (such as the years spoken of in the language already referred to) should apply for "natural born" status to be conferred.
But, apparently, based on what the two of you are saying, and more and more based upon what I am reading regarding jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of soil) status under the law that is not the case and Obama certainly passes under the latter unless somehow he was not born in Hawaii or other US soil at the time.
Thanks for the good and thought provoking dialog.
This link:
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-this-hillarys-october-surprise.html
...makes the claim he was born in Kenya and that him mom immediately flew to the USA to “register” the birth here. However no proof is given of this theory.
My understanding was that in order to be designated “natural born” as opposed to a US citizen that there was a distinction, even if born on US soil, when born to non-US citizens, or single US citizens where the other parent is not.
It seems I may well be mistaken in that notion.
______________
Not at all.
This is why the Supremes need to get involved if it gets to the point of involving U.S. president designates.
It would be fun if they would throw both of them out as ineligible.
I too was born in the Canal Zone, and I don’t care since I am not running for the White House.‘