What about this?
“The British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the peace, lost their character of British subjects, and our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country, and adhering to the British government, they lost, or perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/99/case.html
By remaining in America and choosing to live here, would Obama have ‘never acquired’ or lost his characterization as a British subject?
Let’s say Puerto Rico wages and wins a war against America for their independence. They were American citizens at birth. However, by engaging in a war against the country of their birth, they would be effectively renouncing their American citizenship. America would void their citizenship. Likewise, Puerto Rico would probably not acknowledge as its citizens any Puerto Ricans who did not recognize the newly acquired sovereignty of Puerto Rico who continued to assert their American citizenship.
Obama acquired his British citizenship at birth, after our war for independence. (And I don’t say that to be a smart alec.) So while Obama may not actively seek to enjoy the rights and protections of his British citizenship, that doesn’t change the circumstances of his birth.
He acknowledges his British citizenship. He doesn’t deny it.