“I have a problem with dual citizenship.”
That’s your perogative. Personally, I don’t think I could shirk off an entire half of my lineage...

But see, this is NOT just about YOU shirking off part of your lineage -- it's about those who could damage our country if they are devious enough and have the financial backing to do so.

Consider THIS story from 2003, from an American Citizen who claims Dual Citizenship with Mexico:

U.S. Citizen in Mexico’s Congress

... Manuel de la Cruz, who was elected on a slate to the Congress’ lower house Sunday, is one of six Mexican expatriates who sought legislative seats from homes north of the border. Their goal, they say, is to give political clout to the millions of Mexican immigrants who send regular financial aid to their home states.

Now, what's to prevent a person like Cruz, with obvious "divided loyalties," to be financed by the Mexican Govt or Drug Cartels to run for President?

In Cruz's case, he was not BORN in the US (nor a "Natural Born Citizen"). However, THIS attempt (introduced by Barney Frank) at amending the Constitution in 2000 would have made it possible:

Constitutional Amendment To Allow Foreign-Born Citizens To Be President

It is obviously in our nation’s best interest to ensure that anyone holding the office of President have completely undivided loyalties, either through lineage, or birthplace. It’s simple, and as the Framers proscribed (for obvious reasons).

Interesting info about that Barney Frank bill of 2000. He’s in this up to his neck, and a lot of other bad business too.

My first question, of course, is what on earth was his motivation for bringing such a bill eight years ago?

“But see, this is NOT just about YOU shirking off part of your lineage — it’s about those who could damage our country if they are devious enough and have the financial backing to do so.”

If you think they’re devious, how about you bring it up during the election? As far as I’m concerned, demanding that they be born on our soil is safeguard enough.