Replies

”No, it means that a single solitary allegiance is a REQUISITE to being a “natural born subject” that YOU have argued — for many days now — equate with “Natural Born citizen”

Of course. No one has ever claimed otherwise. Your problem is that Obama was born under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. And since that is the only source of natural allegiance, he is a natural born American citizen.

”If a child’s first allegiance (loyalty) would be to his parents... and if the parents have a NATURAL allegiance (loyalty) to the State that they are a subject/citizen of... then it follows that the allegiance of the parents would be transmitted to their born child (not of age)through jus sanguinis.”

There’s your problem (or, should I say another one of your problems). You are mixing apples and oranges. A child’s “allegiance” its parents has nothing to do with its political allegiances to a state or nation. That political allegiance is between the citizen and the state, and it is an exchange between them of allegiance for protection. A child born in the United States is under the sole and exclusive protection of the United States, no matter what his or her parent’s citizenship might be. We are (and I am astounded how often I have to remind you guys of this) a sovereign nation.

I believe Obama enjoyed “dual allegiance” at birth precipitated by his father’s allegiance to a foreign entity.

No matter how many nationalities he might have, he can have only one natural allegiance. And that allegiance belongs to the nation under whose sole and exclusive jurisdiction he is born. And that is the United States of America. Hence he is and always has been a natural born American citizen, no matter how many other nations may want to claim him as their own.

”The question has ALWAYS been one of Loyalty.”

No. The question has ALWAYS been one of Constitutional eligibility. You guys have taken at least five different stabs at getting around that issue, and in so doing you regularly tangle yourselves up forgetting which particular argument you are making at any given time. Loyalty is not allegiance and vice versa.

”Just as the child is under the protection of the parent; the parent is under the protection of the state.”

But the state’s protection of the child is direct, just as it is with the parents themselves. It does not pass through parents at the moment of birth. It already exists independent of those parents. Those parents could cease to exist at the very moment of birth, and the protection of the state would still be there. Remember… the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” refers to the person born, not to their parents.

”Now if a baby is born in the united states to an American mother and a foreign national father: would the baby be considered to have a dual allegiance, or would his birth in the country of his mother OVERRIDE the allegiance transmitted by the father?”

This issue is already well settled in the law. The baby is born under the sole and exclusive protection of the United States at birth, and thus owes its natural allegiance to the US, to the exclusion of any other nation. The father does not need to be a citizen; the father does not even need to be present in country. The father’s nation would be violating our national sovereignty were it to make any effort whatsoever to come onto American soil and impose its jurisdiction on that child, so it simply and factually cannot provide protection to that child. The child may have citizenship in that nation as a result of its decision to grant it jus sanguinis. But that child need offer neither allegiance nor loyalty

Further, it need not be “the country of his mother” either. Obama did not receive his natural born American citizenship from his mother any more than he received it from his father. He received it as a result of birth on American soil to parents that were not foreign diplomats or members of an occupying army. Nothing is overridden. The two citizenships are separate and unrelated. They both exist simultaneously. One of them is natural born American citizenship gained as a result of birth on American soil to parents that are not foreign diplomats or members of an occupying army, and the other is the involuntary and automatic granting of jus sanguinis citizenship by a nation the child may never visit and of which he may never even be aware.

”However, the key word here is SPLIT loyalty.”

It seems to me that “the key” is not whatever we wish it to be. It is what the Constitution says. And the Constitution says nothing about “split loyalty.”

”“Calvin declared that place of birth was highly desirable, but that ligeance {allegiance: LOYALTY} to ONE SOVEREIGN{NOT SPLIT} was paramount.”

And that allegiance is determined at birth by whatever nation is providing the protection for which natural allegiance is owed. If born on US soil, that protection is afforded exclusively and solely by the US. Hence, that child is a natural born American citizen.

Here ya go, Wiggy ...

And that allegiance is determined at birth by whatever nation is providing the protection for which natural allegiance is owed. If born on US soil, that protection is afforded exclusively and solely by the US. Hence, that child is a natural born American citizen.

Au contraire - mon frere ...

You forget that Dicey was also cited in the Ark decision ...

This part was omitted, since it was not relevant in Ark ...

From "A Digest of the Law of England With Refernce to the Conflict of Law" (Dicey):

More than one state may claim the allegiance of the same individual, and a man whom English Courts treat as a British subject may, by French Courts, be treated as a French citizen.

RULE 23.3—Subject to the exception hereinafter mentioned, any person:

(1) whose father is born within the British dominions, or

(2) whose paternal grandfather is born within the British dominions,

is (though not born within the British dominions) a natural-born British subject.

Provided that no person is under this Rule a natural born British subject whose father is not at the time of such person's birth a natural-born British subject.

The principle of the common law is that a person born beyond the limits of the British dominions does not at his birth owe allegiance to the Crown, and cannot, therefore, be a natural-born British subject. If such a person acquires British nationality at all, he must acquire it at some later period of his life. This principle, however, was before 1870 so far relaxed by legislation that " persons born abroad whose fathers (or grandfather by the father's side) were natural-born subjects are deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes."

" We think the sense of these words [i.e., ' natural-born British " ' subject,' in the statute 4 Geo. II. c. 21] is very plain. "Natural-born subjects are mentioned as distinguished from" subjects by donation or any other mode. A child born out of "the allegiance of the Crown of England is not entitled to be" deemed a natural-born subject, unless the father be, at the "time of the birth of the child, not a subject only, but a subject" by birth. The two characters of subject and subject by birth "must unite in the father."

In order, in short, that a child born abroad may, under Rule 23, be a natural-born British subject, his father must at the moment of the child's birth combine two characteristics: viz., first, the characteristic of having been a British subject at the time of his own (the father's) birth, and, secondly, of still retaining the character of a natural-born British subject at the moment of the child's birth. If either of these characteristics is wanting, the child is not a natural-born British subject.

BTW, 4 Geo. II. c. 21 is better known as The British Nationality Act of 1730 (which was the controlling act in England at the time the Constitution was written) ...

Since the Founding Fathers were learned men, and most were lawers trained in British Law, the would MOST CERTAINLY known this ...

QED

Bitch Slap !!!