No one could become a U.S. citizen without completely renouncing all foreign allegiance.
The same is true today for naturalized citizens. However, U.S. law does not supercede foreign laws any more than foreign laws superced our own. If a person born in the U.S. also qualifies at birth for citizenship in another country then there is nothing U.S. law can do to prevent that. But nothing in the law or the Constitution prevents natural-born citizenship status in this case.
And where does the Constitution define that?
We merely say that, if someone is deemed to be a “natural born citizen” pursuant to a law or statute, we refer to such person as a “statutory natural born citizen”.
You can refer to them however you like. Nothing supports your definition. Not the law. Not the Constitution. Not Supreme Court decisions.
However, H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant “citizenship at birth” to children of illegal immigrants.
Except that they haven't passed the law. Nor would such a law strip those already born of their natural-born status. While the Constitution does not define natural-born citizen, it does rule out ex-post facto laws.
If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Actually it is.
Um where in the Constitution is Natural Born Citizen Defined?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
...If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen...
Actually it is
So you know more than the State Department? I'll play your little game, where in the Constitution does it say a statutory NBC is a Constitutional NBC?
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine...I believe in the Constitution and that there is a difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen, natural born citizen comes from both jus sanguinis and jus soli, and citizen can come from either one. I also believe the 14th amendment has been misconstrued to allow babies born in the US to illegal alien parents to be citizens, look how poorly that has worked out. That too has never been decided by the Supreme Court and is ripe for a decision. According to your definition the little border jumpers baby could be President even though his parents can't vote here and they vote elswhere. Great! Lets reward more lawbreaking. Why even have the clause in the Constitution then, its worthless.