Born abroad

[Stranger in a strange land]

Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.

Well, let's see what it says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Was Obama born in the United States? Yes. Were his parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof? His mother undoubtedly was. His father was too, as had he committed a crime, he would have been tried under U.S. law. He did not have extraterritoriality in other words, and therefore any citizenship conferred upon young Barack by virtue of his father's Kenyan or British nationality is irrelevent. British nationality law has no bearing in the United States, except for foreign diplomats granted extraterritoriality.

A natural born citizen is somebody who acquires citizenship by birth. Attempting to claim otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenous at worst. Vattel's writings are NOT the law of the land, birther mental gymnastics notwithstanding.

But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States,

The Constitutional requirement isn't "citizen", it is "natural born" citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim supports my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

Being a citizen by virtue of geographical location does not satisfy the "natural born" citizen standard, as I explained in my first post.

I'm guessing you're repeating a lie you heard elsewhere, but regardless of what the framers of the constitution felt (and they weren't a homogenous group by the way: they were 50 or so men with vastly different political beliefs), there is no distinction in U.S. law between "natural born citizen" and a "citizen by virtue of geographical location", Vattel notwithstanding.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.

Well, let's see what it says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Was Obama born in the United States? Yes. Were his parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof? His mother undoubtedly was. His father was too, as had he committed a crime, he would have been tried under U.S. law. He did not have extraterritoriality in other words, and therefore any citizenship conferred upon young Barack by virtue of his father's Kenyan or British nationality is irrelevant. British nationality law has no bearing in the United States, except for foreign diplomats granted extraterritoriality.

A natural born citizen is somebody who acquires citizenship by birth. Attempting to claim otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Vattel's writings are NOT the law of the land, birther mental gymnastics notwithstanding.

But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States,

The Constitutional requirement isn't "citizen", it is "natural born" citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim supports my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

Being a citizen by virtue of geographical location does not satisfy the "natural born" citizen standard, as I explained in my first post.

I'm guessing you're repeating a lie you heard elsewhere, but regardless of what the framers of the constitution felt (and they weren't a homogeneous group by the way: they were 50 or so men with vastly different political beliefs), there is no distinction in U.S. law between "natural born citizen" and a "citizen by virtue of geographical location", Vattel notwithstanding.

You said that the XIV Amendment said something about the children of legal immigrants etc. It doesn't...thanks for proving my point for me,

Let me repeat myself...the Constitutional standard for the Presidency is "natural born citizen", not citizen.

You wish to define "natural born citizen" as being someone who acquires citizenship at birth, but you fail to provide any law, historical text, or substantiation of any form to back up your understanding of the term. In addition, you ignore the FACT that the XIV Amendment makes a person born (citizenship at birth) and a naturalized citizen equal in all aspects. So, for your argument to work, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to be qualified to run for President.

He is not, your theory just fell apart.

As I said, US vs. Kim helps define what a citizen is, not what a "natural born citizen" is. In addition, the contention that there is no distinction in US law between a citizen and a natural born citizen is demonstrably false; the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and by the mere mention of "natural born" citizen immediately following the word "citizen" it makes a distinction.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.

There's the distinction right there. Everyone alive in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became a citizen, and qualified to be President. Likewise, their children would be born citizens of the United States. Why draw the line?

The line was drawn to avoid the children of even a single foreign national parent from becoming President.

I don't repeat lies, I read, research, and post historical data as I understand it. I didn't come here to engage in vitriol. I came here to engage in intelligent debate, and expand my knowledge, so if this is your mode of debate, I'd simply rather end our discussion at this point.

Calling me ignorant, disingenuous, and a liar by association is no debate.

It also fails to support your point. In fact, those kinds of tactics are used by people who have nothing to add to the debate.

Have a nice day.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You said that the XIV Amendment said something about the children of legal immigrants etc. It doesn't...thanks for proving my point for me,

Let me repeat myself...the Constitutional standard for the Presidency is "natural born citizen", not citizen.

You wish to define "natural born citizen" as being someone who acquires citizenship at birth, but you fail to provide any law, historical text, or substantiation of any form to back up your understanding of the term. In addition, you ignore the FACT that the XIV Amendment makes a person born (citizenship at birth) and a naturalized citizen equal in all aspects. So, for your argument to work, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to be qualified to run for President.

I claimed no such thing. A naturalized citizen is a citizen who acquires nationality through naturalization. Naturalization does not make one natural born. Schwarzenegger is not a nautral-born citizen under any reading of the law. The 14th Amendment does not confer upon a naturalized citizen the right to serve as president because it says that no STATE shall deprive born and naturalized citizens of equal treatment. The Constitution, and not the state governments, dictates who is eligible to serve as President.

There's the distinction right there. Everyone alive in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became a citizen, and qualified to be President. Likewise, their children would be born citizens of the United States. Why draw the line?

The line was drawn to avoid the children of even a single foreign national parent from becoming President.

Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen who wasn't naturalized until 14 years after Arthur's birth. He was elected as Vice President in 1880 and sworn in after James Garfield's death. There actually was some controversy at the time - including suprious claims that Arthur had been born in Canada - but he was allowed to serve nonetheless.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You said that the XIV Amendment said something about the children of legal immigrants etc. It doesn't...thanks for proving my point for me,

Let me repeat myself...the Constitutional standard for the Presidency is "natural born citizen", not citizen.

You wish to define "natural born citizen" as being someone who acquires citizenship at birth, but you fail to provide any law, historical text, or substantiation of any form to back up your understanding of the term. In addition, you ignore the FACT that the XIV Amendment makes a person born (citizenship at birth) and a naturalized citizen equal in all aspects. So, for your argument to work, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to be qualified to run for President.

I claimed no such thing. A naturalized citizen is a citizen who acquires nationality through naturalization. Naturalization does not make one natural born. Schwarzenegger is not a nautral-born citizen under any reading of the law. The 14th Amendment does not confer upon a naturalized citizen the right to serve as president because it says that no STATE shall deprive born and naturalized citizens of equal treatment. The Constitution, and not the state governments, dictates who is eligible to serve as President.

There's the distinction right there. Everyone alive in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became a citizen, and qualified to be President. Likewise, their children would be born citizens of the United States. Why draw the line?

The line was drawn to avoid the children of even a single foreign national parent from becoming President.

Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen who wasn't naturalized until 14 years after Arthur's birth. He was elected as Vice President in 1880 and sworn in after James Garfield's death. There actually was some controversy at the time - including suprious claims that Arthur had been born in Canada - but he was allowed to serve nonetheless.

Interesting...the XIV Amendment creates absolute equality between a person born in the US, and a naturalized citizen:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The States elect The President, via the Electoral College, so Constitutionally speaking, the States are strictly forbidden by the Constitution from denying a naturalized citizen the privilege of serving as POTUS. When the Amendment states "all persons born...are citizens", it includes the children of citizens AND non-citizens, or the children of a citizen married to a non-citizen, drawing a line of equality between all those instances, and naturalized citizens.

In 1866, during the debate surrounding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the bill’s primary author, Sen. John Bingham of Ohio, offers proof that nearly one hundred years after the ratification of the Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” still meant exactly what it meant at the time of the document’s composition, and most importantly, that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to alter its meaning:

   

“…find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) Id. at 1291)

Parents...that annoying "s" again.

In 1866, our government still understood what the Framers meant when they established natural born citizenship as a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency. A child of a subject of a foreign nation is NOT a natural born citizen even if the child is born in the United States.

In addition, Barack Obama was born a British subject, by virtue of his father's British citizenship.

Finally...Chester Arthur lied to cover his ineligibility...all the back up is provided here, with all substantiation provided.

The fact that Chester Arthur "got away" with becoming President in spite of his not meeting the Constitutional standard does NOT set precedent nor does it change the Constitution, any more than OJ Simpson getting away with murder changed murder laws in California.

Chester Arthur wasn't "allowed to serve", he got away with a lie.

Is that what you expect to happen now?

[Luis Gonzalez]

The 14th Amendment does not confer upon a naturalized citizen the right to serve as president because it says that no STATE shall deprive born and naturalized citizens of equal treatment. The Constitution, and not the state governments, dictates who is eligible to serve as President.

A couple of obvious points...

The XIV Amendment is part of the Constitution.

The Constitution never "confers" rights, it merely acknowledges them, and enjoins government from violating them.

You are right...it is the Constitution, not the Courts, and not laws or statutes that dictates who is eligible.

The Constitution calls for a natural born citizen, not a citizen, and not a naturalized citizen.

Obama is a citizen, no question, but he is not a natural born citizen.

[London Man]

There is a difference in UK law between being a "subject" and a "citizen".

All we have in this issue are opinions. This has never been legally tested.

[Old Europe]

Only people who can undoubtly prove that at least 66% of their total ancestry (starting from 1776) were Americans should be granted U.S. citizenship. Everyone else: Immediate deportation.

[True Federalist]

As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.

Luis, I note that you chose to rebut only the parts of my post that did not address your claims.  Since we no longer hold that females are legal adjuncts of their husbands, as was the case in 18th century pre-revolutionary France, why should natural-born citizenship exist only if the father be a citizen?

The definition of natural born citizen, came from Vattel, and was applied to the US. Should you chose to ignore the plural form of the word parent used in the text, that is your prerogative, the "s" however, continues to exist.

You're neglecting the reason why Vattel refers so often to the citizenship of the father and never on that of the mother.  In the 18th century since a wife was a legal adjunct of her husband, when she married, her citizenship changed to match that of her husband.  Were we still operating under those principles, then when Ann married Barack Sr., she would have lost her U.S. citizenship and acquired British citizenship.  That legal doctrine no longer applies and clearly is not something that Vattel would have considered in his formulation. So even if one takes Vattel's formulation is taken as definitive, it provides no bar to Obama becoming president.  Legal doctrine today acknowledges that husband and wife may be citizens of different countries and in general provides that they inherit the citizenship of their parents.  Hence, because of the differences in how citizenship and marriage interact between now and Vattel's time, a natural-born citizen under Vattel's formulation need only have one parent be a citizen.

Consider the Naturalization Act of 1790, since it provides a more definitive understanding of what the fathers intended concerning "natural born citizens" than that of French jurist that some may well never had read.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to those whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Italics as in the original.

As you can see, they held to a patrocentric view of citizenship that has long since been abandoned.

While the Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795, no other Act of Congress has ever touched upon attempting to define "natural born citizen" so I would say that it offers the clearest insight into the intent of the founders.

Now unless you want to argue that a person can have more than one father, there is no way that the usage of the plural here implies that the act requires that both parents be citizens.  (Of course, they never considered the possibility that husband and wife would hold different citizenships, since that could not occur in 1790.)

Your argument essentially seems to be that changing from a father-only interpretation of the ius sanguinis based determination of "natural born" to an either-parent interpretation as has already occurred with citizenship in general requires a constitutional amendment.  If you are going to be that literal, then do you hold that the air force is unconstitutional as well since the literal text of the constitution only provides for an army and a navy?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Than let's consider the full Vattel, and read beyond the dreaded "s"...

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;  for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

In that view, Obama's citizenship fails to rise to the level of natural born, even more so when one considers that under British law at the time of his birth, he was born a British subject.

If you wish to discuss laws pertaining to citizenship, then why discuss a repealed law, and not the prevailing law at the time of Obama's birth?

Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961. Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942.

Stanley Ann Dunham was nearly four months shy of her nineteenth birthday the day Barack was born.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).
 

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
 

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
 

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

Stanley Ann Dunham failed to meet that requirement by at least three months.

Barack Obama was not even a citizen of the United States at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.

Thanks for helping me find that.

[London Man]

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

Wasn't Obama born in the United States? Hawaii became a state in 1959.

1 and 7 appear to be separate criteria- you just need one.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

Wasn't Obama born in the United States? Hawaii became a state in 1959.

1 and 7 appear to be separate criteria- you just need one.

Lesson number 1.

Never post when you're half asleep.

You are right.

Section 7 applies to people born outside of US soil, so if in fact Obama was born in Hawaii, he falls under section one.

[London Man]

As Obama was born in the US, wasn't he subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Section 301:

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

The way that's structured implies that any of those criteria are sufficient. Obama meets three of them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As you can see, they held to a patrocentric view of citizenship that has long since been abandoned.

While the Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795, no other Act of Congress has ever touched upon attempting to define "natural born citizen" so I would say that it offers the clearest insight into the intent of the founders.

The framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth were also British Citizens, and that's why the Framers declared that while they were Citizens of the United States they themselves were not "natural born". To solve this problem, they included a" grandfather clause "which states that "No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President. ". Because Barack Obama obviously was not alive prior to the Constitution, it is argued that he is not eligible because of his British Subject status at the time of his birth.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Section C of that also basially answers the question as to someone born outside the US to US citizens.

For the record it wouldn't even matter if Hawaii had attained statehood yet when Obama was born. It was still US territory. McCain was eligible despite not being born in a state, as was Barry Goldwater.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As Obama was born in the US, wasn't he subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Section 301:

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

The way that's structured implies that any of those criteria are sufficient. Obama meets three of them.

You guys continue to provide subtantiation for Obama's citizenship, which I am not questioning.

I am questioning whether he meets the higher Constitutional standard of being a natural born citizen.

Your argument keeps going back to the same point...he is a citizen, therefore he is a natural born citizen.

A citizen, born on US soil is NOT the same as a natural born citizen.

[I left.]

A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Always seemed pretty simple to me, and I think that's likely what courts would interpret it to mean.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Always seemed pretty simple to me, and I think that's likely what courts would interpret it to mean.

Equally simple to me, is that a man born a British subject, cannot also be a natural born American citizen.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

For the record it wouldn't even matter if Hawaii had attained statehood yet when Obama was born. It was still US territory. McCain was eligible despite not being born in a state, as was Barry Goldwater.

The basic difference of course, being that both McCain and Goldwater had parents (plural) who were citizens, and were not born subjects/citizens of a foreign government.

[I left.]

For legal purposes in the U.S., an American is entitled to all the rights of being American (or of being a natural born citizen).

It's completely irrelevant whether one parent is foreign, or even if someone holds dual citizenship

[Luis Gonzalez]

For legal purposes in the U.S., an American is entitled to all the rights of being American (or of being a natural born citizen).

It's completely irrelevant whether one parent is foreign, or even if someone holds dual citizenship

And to complete the logical sequence, the XIV Amendment then, since it forbids the States from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", and with the clear understanding that the Constitution delegates the process of electing the President to the States, secures in place a naturalized citizen's privilege to serve in the capacity of POTUS.

In mathematical terms...if a "person born" is citizen "A", a naturalized person is citizen "B", and a "natural born citizen" (Presidential qualification) is citizen "C", then A=B (XIV Amendment), and A=C (Barack Obama) then B=C in the question of Constitutional standing insofar as the Presidency.

But we KNOW that B does NOT equal C. So it is obvious that a natural born citizen is born with a quality that elevates him or her above that of a person who gains their citizenship by being born on US soil, and naturalized citizens.

Something does not add up here. It is easier to just say "yes he is qualified" and leave it at that, but that is not the right answer.

Insofar as the idea that holding dual citizenship is irrelevant to this issue, here's a snippet from the US State Department website:

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.

The idea that a President of The United States could travel to a country outside the US where he is also a citizen of, and being arrested for some crime he is accused of under their laws is unfathomable.

You cannot be both a natural born citizen, and a British subject at birth.

[London Man]

You cannot be both a natural born citizen, and a British subject at birth.

Of course you can. British subjects are not British citizens. The terms are not the same.

[True Federalist]

Than let's consider the full Vattel, and read beyond the dreaded "s"...

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;  for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

In that view, Obama's citizenship fails to rise to the level of natural born, even more so when one considers that under British law at the time of his birth, he was born a British subject.

You still are dodging the point I brought up that in Vattel's view and time, a wife's citizenship was linked to that of her husband.  That is why Vattel uses a now anachronistic patriarchal view of citizenship as being descended from the father only. Women have a full and independent citizenship status these days in the United States and did so at the time Obama was born.

I also find you references to British law absurd.  Didn't we fight a war on our right to be independent?  British laws concerning who they consider to be citizens have since 1776 had no bearing on who is an American citizen, whether they be natural born or not.

If you wish to discuss laws pertaining to citizenship, then why discuss a repealed law, and not the prevailing law at the time of Obama's birth?

Because no other law passed since then has use the phraseology "natural born citizen".  Ever since then they have used the phraseology "citizen at birth".  As you have admitted, Obama clearly is a "citizen at birth".  At best a shaky case can be made for the two phrases not being equivalent, in which case only those laws, whether repealed or not, that use the phrase "natural born citizen" can give insight into what was meant by "natural born citizen" by the founders.  (Even if the 1952 act did use the phrase, it would give no insight into original intent.)

[So the Heroes Fall]

It's not uncommon for a Constitution to set a requirement, yet legislation which defines that requirement is still needed. The Volstead Act and Prohibition is another example. As the Constitution does not define what a "natural born citizen" is, one needs to look toward legislation and current US citizenship law is quite clear that Obama qualifies.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's not uncommon for a Constitution to set a requirement, yet legislation which defines that requirement is still needed. The Volstead Act and Prohibition is another example. As the Constitution does not define what a "natural born citizen" is, one needs to look toward legislation and current US citizenship law is quite clear that Obama qualifies.

Please show me what current US Legislation defines "natural born citizen".

[Luis Gonzalez]

Than let's consider the full Vattel, and read beyond the dreaded "s"...

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;  for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

In that view, Obama's citizenship fails to rise to the level of natural born, even more so when one considers that under British law at the time of his birth, he was born a British subject.

You still are dodging the point I brought up that in Vattel's view and time, a wife's citizenship was linked to that of her husband.  That is why Vattel uses a now anachronistic patriarchal view of citizenship as being descended from the father only. Women have a full and independent citizenship status these days in the United States and did so at the time Obama was born.

I also find you references to British law absurd.  Didn't we fight a war on our right to be independent?  British laws concerning who they consider to be citizens have since 1776 had no bearing on who is an American citizen, whether they be natural born or not.

If you wish to discuss laws pertaining to citizenship, then why discuss a repealed law, and not the prevailing law at the time of Obama's birth?

Because no other law passed since then has use the phraseology "natural born citizen".  Ever since then they have used the phraseology "citizen at birth".  As you have admitted, Obama clearly is a "citizen at birth".  At best a shaky case can be made for the two phrases not being equivalent, in which case only those laws, whether repealed or not, that use the phrase "natural born citizen" can give insight into what was meant by "natural born citizen" by the founders.  (Even if the 1952 act did use the phrase, it would give no insight into original intent.)

Insight into the original intent is clear...the Founders wished to avoid foreign influence in the office of The President.

St. George Tucker wrote:

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague." - “Treatise on the Constitution” (1803)

James Madson's notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 support St. George Tucker's contention that the Founders intended to avoid foreign influence from gaining a foothold in the Presidency:

The Ministers of foreign powers would have and 7 make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election. Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt. a man attached to their respective politics & interests. No pains, nor perhaps expense, will be spared, to gain from the Legislature an appointmt. favorable to their wishes. 

The Framer's intent is easily deducted from existing data.