[Wil H]

This is the law on the point at hand.

No it is NOT!

What you cite is the CURRENT law ...

Now go look at the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization law AS IT STOOD IN 1961.

You will see it was different then.

When 0bama was born, the provisions in what is now para (g) required the US citizen parent to have lived FIVE years in the US after the age of fourteen, not TWO.

Since 0bama's mother was only 18 should could not comply.

[MindBender26]

This is a common misconception of non-lawyers. Mr. Obama, or any citizen is entitled to claim the benefits of revised law. Notice that even the law in question confers benefits on persons born before 1934.

No, I'm not saying that Mr. Obama goes back < 1934. The issue here is that he entitled to the benefits of current law or the older, whichever is more beneficial to him, unless specifically denied by a new, now current, law.

Example. Slavery was outlawed by the Emancipation Proclamation. It also served to make null and void previous laws regarding slavery, some of which granted certain rights to slaves, made certain commercial accommodations, etc, some of which actually benefited slaves. Although slavery was outlawed from the EP forward, the previous rights were not canceled.

The rights, benefits, innurements, are cumulative, not selective nor exclusionary. Yeah, there would be appeals on a ruling, but the foundation of this is well established.