Your argument here would deny citizenship of John McCain (born in Panama) and of Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., (born in Paris) and the late George Romney, born in Mexico of parents who had been citizens of Utah Territory before statehood and fled to Mexico in a snit over Congress requiring anti-polygamy laws as a condition of Utah statehood and forming a Mormon colony in Mexico with no evident intention of ever returning to Utah or any American jurisdiction.
Personally, I hate Weicker more than I hate Obozo but the mere fact that his parents were in Paris on business for Squibb Pharmaceutical when he was born in about 1930 did not render him ineligible as a non-NBC, much less being thereby rendered "not a citizen at all."
No. The Act of Congress in force at the time Obama was born (similar to the one in force) required the citizen parent to reside in the US subsequent to their 14th birthday. Comrade Stanley Anne birthed Barry when she was 18, so could not have completed the requirement recited in the Act.
-- If I understand your previous arguments, you were making a distinction between citizen at birth and NBC. --
Yes. A person who obtains citizenship solely by operation of a statute is naturalized. That is black letter law, thousands of precedents. All who read and understand the precedents will come to the same conclusion - it's an easy conclusion to reach.
That they are citizens is clear. That they were made citizens at birth is clear. It is also clear that they are citizens solely by operation of statute.
McCain has an argument that he would have been born in the US but for the fact the US ordered his parents out of the country. Still, simply looking at his birth situation and the fact that his citizenship attaches by an act of Congress, it appears he was naturalized at birth, perhaps retroactively (People born in Alaska after 1899 are citizens at birth, even though Alaska wasn't even a state, by operation of a statute passed after Alaska was made a state).
Weicker has an argument that he was born the citizen of a state, and Art IV, Sec. 2 citizen of the state his parents were domiciled in, even though he was born in France. Again, the paperwork trail that is normally generated makes him look naturalized, but he has a good argument for being an NBC, provided his parents had no allegiance to any country but the US.
All of them are citizens, no question. Except Obama who is not a citizen, if he was not born in the US.
I don't know of a born abroad case ever argued on the basis of Art IV, Sec. 2 and domicile in a state. There might be a few of those. I haven't looked, because Cruz's parents were domiciled in Canada, with pop seeking Canadian citizenship.
Obama is a different case. If he was born outside the USA, his mom was not old enough to confer citizenship upon him. And there has been no legal Documentation to date that shows he was born here. Circumstantial evidence shows that he was not.
Why would he have used fraudulent social security numbers his whole life? Why is his selective service form a forgery? Why was he only seen a newborn in Seattle where his mom went to high school, and where in 1960 pregnant girls often stayed in unwed mother homes over the border in Vancouver and gave up their babies for adoption?
And why did Levin never ever mention these things with regard to Obama?
No. The Act of Congress in force at the time Obama was born (similar to the one in force now) required the citizen parent to reside in the US for five years subsequent to their 14th birthday. Comrade Stanley Anne birthed Barry when she was 18, so could not have completed the requirement recited in the Act.
Almost certain some other errors of mine, that create confusion. Hopefully you get the jist anyway.