A reading of your various posts suggests you have an objective view of most of the known facts and issues. Let me ask about the logic in your statement above.
Under what theory is it possible for a non-U.S. birth to detract from NBC?
I submit location of birth is a fundamental element of NBC, and the answer could lead to fast tracked impeachment and removal (and election fraud). Non-U.S. birth represents game over. On the other hand, foreign citizen parentage depends entirely on a USSC opinion that it may or may not apply retroactively to O.
Of the two issues, which issue is it that O has never avoided and which does he continue to avoid?
Whose agenda is it that calls for ignoring the birth issue?
If foreign citizen parentage is the only way to disprove eligibility, by what means can it be established sooner than establishing non-U.S. birth?
I meant the hyper focus on the physical long-form birth certificate. Not the general concept of foreign birth. But I am not a fan of the Kenya-birth scenario. Logistically it does not fit and it would presume a strong relationship between Obama and SAD. And that was not the case. If I had to bet I would go 40-40 between Hawaii and Washington state and 20 on BC, Canada. This is because SAD shows up in Washington state in late August or early September 1961.
It is strongly argued that both jus sanguinis and jus soli are required to meet the the requirement of Article II. I do not want to directly challenge that as it is what has been specifically cited at different times in SCOTUS cases and even in the sham SR 511.
However, if you had to say which one is 'fundamental' I would argue and I believe it is clearly shown that 'jus sanguinis' is the more powerful of the two and the one 'most' relied on by the founding fathers.
The first naturalization act of our country (Naturalization act of 1790) was specific on this and specific that it is the FATHER whose citizenship counts. From the 1790 act: "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 persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"
The citizenship of the father is part of 'natural law' (vs. positive law). Even the word patriot has its root in Greek language referring to your fathers land. Patriot and paternity have the same root. Pat = father!
I just noticed tonight that the 1790 act does not automatically declare that overseas children "ARE natural born Citizens" but indicated they are "CONSIDERED AS natural born Citizens". Meaning that the writers here probably recognized jus soli but basically 'waived' it as part of this law!!!! in 1795 this entire provision is dropped. Maybe because some felt this confused the jus soli issue.