What a lack of logic you have. What divided loyalties does Ted Cruz have? Tell me.
Let’s suppose this is a different scenario that has zero connection to Obama: Which I suspect is partly the reason for the birther crap on Cruz (gotta be consistent right?). I’ll make up an example for you to follow. A French baby is born while the mom is in America. She’s a wife whose husband has a job in our country. Soon they go home. Because our law (like Canada’s) confers citizenship automatically on the child, this baby is a dual citizen. The kid lives in France the vast majority of his life and becomes active in French politics. Assume said person has zero record of indicating any allegiance to America. Should his loyalty to France be suspect?
Yes - The baby is a dual citizen. France is free to deal with that split allegiance as France pleases.
In the US we impose a very limited restriction on citizens that may have divided loyalty - They just can’t be President.
Have a nice day.
While he doesn't display, or act on divided loyalites...he most certainly owes allegiance to Cananda [1][2].
The simplest way to look at it is the following: if you are a citizen without the benefit of any Act of Congress or any Amendment to the Constitution, then you are "natural-born," if you become a citizen because of any act of man, then you are a citizen, but not "natural-born."
Ted Cruz is a citizen because of legislation that grants citizenship to the children who are born out of the country but have at least one citizen parent. This legislation used include requirements as the the age of the citizen parent and the number of years they had lived in the U.S. - not sure that it does anymore.
Congress made one attempt, shortly after our nation's founding (I believe in the 1st Congress), to grant "natural-born" status to those born out of the country to 2 citizen parents. They obviously realized later that they were defining something that could not be defined by human intervention, as they removed that provision from the new Naturalization Act in the subsequent Congress.
The determination of "natural-born" lies beyond the reach of mere mortals!
Depends on the job. If pop works for the government of France, the child is not a US citizen as he's considered subject to the jurisdiction of France. Not just employees with immunity, but any government employee. Military here on training, counsilate employee, trade representative etc. Legal opinions have defined jurisdiction as absolute, complete jurisdiction, political rights and military obligations would apply to them. Based on that 19th century definition, closer to the 14th Amendment than todays courts, I'd suggest that it's a myth the 14th confers "birthright" citizenship. Heck, another law was needed to confer citizenship to non-naturalized Indians, irrespective of their place of birth, on or off the reservation.
I'm not going to bother with the Cruz issue