“No, he was an artificial born citizen, because it required an artificial, manmade, statutory law to make him a U.S. citizen,”
That is such jacked up logic it isn’t funny. The same could be said of anyone at any time: “Yes, we know he was born here to two American parents but nothing says that makes him a citizen.”
In fact, throughout history laws were made that granted citizenship or took it away. You are simply buying into a line of illogical reasoning that says, “Of course he was born here so that makes him a citizen”, when in fact there could be laws that say otherwise. Such as, “No person born on US soil is a citizen until the age of 21 and having served two years military service.”
No, you are misrepresenting what I said to knock down your own strawman argument. The terminology I used comes directly from the legal authorities. Look them up for yourself. See what “natural” means. See what “citizen” and “citizenship” mean in their legal definitions. Citizenship is the status of membership in a society, to use the abbreviated concept. Something in law is “natural” as opposed to “artificial” when no manmade enactments artificially create or modify the status, so the status exists due to the inherent and physical being of the person. A child is a natural member of a society when the natural parents are members of that same society and the birth occurs within the undivided jurisdiction of the same society, thereby precluding the existence of being a member of any other society to which the child would have the right of protection and the duty of allegiance and obediance.
In cases where the child has ever been a member of a foreign society with the right of protection from the foreign society and the duty of allegiance and obediance to the foreign society, the adopted citizenship is by the artificial intervention of a manmade law which negates any possibility of the membership being a natural membership or a natural born citizenship.