While I agree with that, convincing a court is a different issue altogether.
(The section of the 1790 law you cite was repealed; presumably because someone (John Jay) pointed out they could not redefine terms in the Constitution.)
The 1790 law was replaced with a 1795 law which was replaced with a 1798 law which was replaced with an 1802 law. Sorry.
You are prattling on about whether or not Obama was naturalized at birth...
No, I have never stated that. I was prattling on regarding whether Obama qualified as a citizen at birth. One can be either a citizen at birth or one becomes a naturalized citizen. There are no other options for citizenship. If you were to actually manage to read Vattel, you would find that he is in complete concurrence with this.
I don't mind you disagreeing with my statements, but it sure would be nice if you could disagree with something that I actually wrote vice something that you imagine that I wrote.
Don't know if it's utter disrespect or lack of reading comprehension that causes you to do so, thus I won't draw any conclusions.
If you actually manage to read Vattel, you would know that he discusses naturalization at birth. He cited the example of Britain, which had jus soli citizens — those were not “naturels ou indignes” aka “natural-born citizens.” As Vattel pointed out those citizens are considered naturalized at birth. See Book I, Chapter XIX, paragraph 214, last sentence.
Don’t know if it’s utter hatred of America or just rank ignorance and illiteracy fueling your remarks... but now that I’ve cured you of the latter, that leaves only the former as an option if you continue.
Hope this helps.