There is no definitive evidence to support your view, and that is why the Supreme Court needs to rule on what "natural born citizen" means. Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen, and it is not reasonable to assume that the United States would not honor his wish, had he demonstrated it, to take his child to his place of residence in Kenya. Obama Sr. had rights afforded him as the father of that child under the law in effect regarding nationality in the UK (1948). That law provided that his progeny were also British subjects. I doubt that the United States would have denied Obama Sr. his legal rights as parent, so in that sense, indeed, Obama Jr. inherited his nationality from his father at birth.
The question is what the U.S. law at the time said about Obama Jr's citizenship. Was he natural born? That is what we wanted the Supreme Court to decide. The question is an open one that has never been decided.
The question is what the U.S. law at the time said about Obama Jr’s citizenship. Was he natural born? That is what we wanted the Supreme Court to decide. The question is an open one that has never been decided.
***
If Obama is found to be a dual national, how can he be a “natural born” citizen ? A “natural born” citizen owes allegiance to ONE and ONLY ONE nation.
Obama may be “native born” but he is certainly NOT “natural born” ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual nationality is “a status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717, 1952).
It is generally considered that while dual nationals are in the country of which they are citizens that country has a predominant claim on their allegiance.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries.