In the same way, lots of constitutional scholars say if Obama was born in HI and even if his father was a UK subject, Obama is a constitutional “natural born citizen” because of the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark. I disagree, but only a Supreme Court decision can ultimately refute them. If the Supreme Court ruled against him, Obama’s ineligibility based on his UK subject father might not apply retroactively and he might get a pass. No one including Obama can say for certain how the Supreme Court would rule on D’Onofrio’s theory of Obama’s ineligibility.
In contrast, there is near total agreement that if Obama was born outside the US and not even on or near a US base to two US citizen parents, he would not be a natural born citizen. It has been beaten into the public brain that an HI birth is the single thing that makes his a natural born citizen.
If Obama hid a foreign birth or knew that his HI vital records had been amended and hid it, that would be fraud. Even this Democratic Congress would impeach Obama for such a fraud, in my view.
I believe that retroactive citizenship would be more than just a long shot. It is a circumstance of Birth. Wong Kim Ark was quite clearly decided to be a citizen, but NOT a natural Born Citizen and the decision makes that very clear distinction.
If anything, Wong Kim Ark makes the distinction between citizen and Natural Born citizen very clear.
Read this article carefully, it is dated from 1884, during the term of another unconstitutional President,Chester Arthur.
It is very clear, Citizens born in the country, of a father who is an alien, are NOT natural Born citizens.