Your idea that a person who is born in the United States is an alien doesn't comport with established common law.<quoted text>IAW real law Obama, is an alien.
Courts have articulated that a person born in the United States regardless as to the political status of his or her parents is a United States citizen. In fact, the courts have acknowleged that the Naturalization Acts only applied to those born outside the United States who wished to become United States citizens.
You want court citations? Here they are:
.“At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
(internal citation omitted)
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866) SWAYNE, Circuit Justice
“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.).
United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)
A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1. In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)
NATURALIZATIONS ACTS AND CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES:
In his dissent in the Dred Scott decision, Justice Curtis understood that the naturalization acts were used to remove the disability of foreign birth when he observed:
"Among the powers expressly granted to Congress is "the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." It is not doubted that this is a power to prescribe a rule for the removal of the disabilities consequent on foreign birth. To hold that it extends further than this, would do violence to the meaning of the term naturalization, fixed in the common law,... It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 578 (Curtis, J,., dissenting)(internal citations omitted)
The Supreme Court Court in Zartarian v. Billings, 204 US 170(1907) noted that absent native birth in the United States, a child born overseas needed to be naturalized. "As Mariam was born abroad, a native of Turkey, she has not become a citizen of the United States, except upon compliance with the terms of the act of Congress, for, wanting native birth, she can not otherwise become a citizen of the United States. Her right to citizenship, if any she has, is the creation of Congress, exercising the power over this subject conferred by the Constitution." Id at 173.
A child born in the United States to Columbia citizens was deemed a citizen of the United States.“Plaintiff Lina Acosta was born within the United States on September 23, 1975. The government concedes, as it must, that she is a citizen of the United States.’ Acosta v. Gaffney, 413 F. Supp. 827, 831 (D.C. N.J. 1976), reversed on other grounds, 558 F.2d 1153 (1977)