[Hillary'sMoralVoid]

Definitions are gleaned from a voluminous amount of reading on the subject, but I am certainly not the final authority.

Native born citizen is not a legally defined citizenship as far as I can tell, but it is throwhn around by the afterbirthers like it is!

“Since it is acknowledged that Obama’s parents were not both US citizens, then his only claim to citizenship is that he was born in the United States. It’s either true or not.”

He’d still be a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen (therefore unqualified). Had Stanley Ann not declared who the father was, it could not be proven that he was not a natural born citizen (born to two American parents) assuming they could not find a foreign father through DNA.

The whole point of the article is that he is not, and has never been a Natural Born Citizen of the united States, per the constitution.

[Tublecane]

“Native born citizen is not a legally defined citizenship as far as I can tell”

Nor is natural born citizen, technically. But that doesn’t stop Birthers, as much as anti-Birthers, to define it on their own.

[Phlyer]

He’d still be a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen . .

Again, what do you base that on?

If he was born on US sovereign territory, then what is his citizenship if not United States? Are you saying that he is a stateless person because one parent was a foreigner? I think you'd have trouble with the 14th Amendment on that one.

I will continue to maintain that there are only 'native-born / natural-born' or 'naturalized' citizens.

You can continue to make your own definitions that "prove" your point by drawing distinctions between people born in the United States and "natural born" citizens, but I don't see it. There are legitimate questions about whether he was truly born in Hawaii, but you seem to be granting that and still saying that he is not natural born, which doesn't make sense to me. It it makes you happy, then God bless, and have a nice day.