Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
In the scenario given by Janee the child is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Leo Donofrio’s case assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, Obama’s father was not a US citizen and that made Obama a British subject at birth. Therefore he is not a natural born citizen.
If he was born in Hawaii then the citizenship of his father in this case is irrelevant; Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. Donofiro's claim is contradicted by federal law. the 14th Amendment, and earlier Supreme Court decisions.
We will just have to wait and see what the SC Justices decide on Friday to see if they will fully hear Donofrio’s case. Also waiting to hear what Obama’s response to Justice Souter is today.
I imagine Obama's response to Justice Souter will mirror his original response to the lower court. That resulted is a dismissal so why change?
“Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”
“If he was born in Hawaii then the citizenship of his father in this case is irrelevant; Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.”
I do not understand. Your first quote does state “of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States”. So how can the citizenship of Obama’s father be irrelevant?