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 !!!