Replies

By the 14th amendment. Not the same thing as a natural citizen.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
[...]
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 698 (1898)

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words "or naturalized"), and reading,
"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside."
Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:
"Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit."
Mr. Conness, of California, replied:
"The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of [169 U. S. 699] the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

169 U. S. 702.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
"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,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845

It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.
[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

But that's still not "natural" citizenship under the Vattel definition, which is the correct definition.

Vattel wrote a book about the Law of Nations which is now known as International Law. International Law applies to relations between two or more nation states. It has no application to the domestic affairs of any one state, and is not the citizenship law of any place on Earth.

The correct definition is the U.S. Constitutio at Amendment 14, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, not as interpreted by some knucklehead on the internet.

The citizenship law of the United States is not determined in Europe under International Law in a court in the Hague, Netherlands.

"If his parents’ marriage was invalid, then Obama would have inherited his mother’s American citizenship."

Exactly who Barry's biological mother is has not been shown publicly. The LFBC produced under C_A asset "Loretta Fuddy" has been shown to be a fraudulent forgery by a great deal of evidence. That immediately throws a dark shade onto the likelihood of SAD being his biological mother. The same applies to BHO, Sr., even despite the shared name.

It can be known (and is already to the intelligence community) that neither Malik Obama nor Maya Soetero Ng have a close, familial relationship to Barry. If that is born out publicly through non-corrupted, double-blind DNA testing, it would be reliable proof that Barry is the son of neither SAD nor BHO I. If those results showed parentage just as seen on Barry's LFBC, I believe the intel community would long ago have brought that forth. It likely could have availed to set the myriad of LFBC amateur and professional document sleuths on their heels in the days after the LFBC was first shown publicly in late April of 2011.

Similarly, such information portends to totally reduce all the endless chatter about the Kenyan citizenry of BHO, Sr. and natural born citizenry. If any valid documentation supported natural born citizen status, that would be what we would have seen from Brennan's Analysis Corp., White House Counsel election specialist Bauer, the Hawaii Depart of Health and Barry.

Since that documentation has not been proffered, but a fraudulent forgery was likely criminally put forth in its place, we should "hang our hat" on the most likely "hook" that Barry was never a natural born citizen and that criminals sought and were successful to place him into the presidency--twice. It's as if Barry became the personification of the Manchurian Candidate.