His claim? Do you know what the CRS is? It is not a person but the research group that our congress depends upon for its interpretation of the law!
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/history.html
If they get it wrong then this country is REALLY screwed!
You say, “there are at four kinds (of citizens) because of the 14th amendment.”
I only know of two, natural born and naturalized. Enlighten me, what are the other two and where can they be found and do they require citizen parents? See, this is the question I’ve been asking you throughout this thread. So please deliver the answer without any misdirection.
Mr Bingham wrote in 1862:
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic are citizens by birth — natural-born citizens.” (Congressional Globe, 37th, 2nd Session (1862), page 1639, leftmost column)
Furthermore you mention Luria as if it helps your argument.
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913): “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
The most recent CRS memo on eligibility was written by Jack Maskell. The memo is HIS opinion, but is obviously superceded by the three Supreme Court decisions that were unanimous in affirming that NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
I only know of two, natural born and naturalized.
What you "know of" doesn't define the full limits of citizenship. I just gave you a third type of citizenship directly from the Minor decision. Here's another part of that same passage. Maybe you'll understand this better:
He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.
Do you understand?? The "original citizens" were citizens by association, not by naturalization nor by birth, per se. The 14th amendment ADDED two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and naturalization for those persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which the Ark court defined as "resident aliens." If such person were already citizens, then there was no need for the 14th amendment.
Mr Bingham wrote in 1862:
He didn't write that. This was from a debate; a few sentences later he added a qualifier that the natural-born citizens were those born "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty ..." this description alone precludes Obama from being a natural-born citizen. Thanks for pointing it out.
Furthermore you mention Luria as if it helps your argument.
It does. You conveniently omitted the citations for the bolded sentence:
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.You'll notice, there's absolutely NO reference to Wong Kim Ark, so the court is NOT citing Ark as a precedent on presidential eligiblity, but it DOES cite Minor; and we already know that Minor defined natives as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens."