Yes. Doesn't that have to be the rule? Otherwise, we cede control over our own candidates to the laws of other countries.
Look, the eligibility of someone to be President must be based on our laws, not on the laws of another nation. Otherwise, you give other nations a veto power over who can run for President. Suppose Palin wins the nomination, and Iran passes a law declaring her an Iranian citizen. That makes her a dual citizen, and hence....ineligible?
The most you could do is make a so-called "dual citizen" ineligible if, under the citizenship laws of the U.S., that person could also be considered a citizen of another country. But you just can't have a "no dual citizen" law, or other nations will have a field day messing with us.
---------------------------------------------------------
A. Iran "making" citizens out of sovereign U.S. citizens would not be recognized internationally. Second, it definitely wouldn't be recognized in the U.S. Furthermore, following your line, the U.S. congress could then turn around and make everyone on the planet a U.S. citizen. Those scenarios are nonsense.
The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement for the Commander in Chief of the armed forces is, in part, a national security measure. No CinC born with multiple allegiances!
So what? Isn't it our position that what other countries say legally doesn't affect our laws?
Second, it definitely wouldn't be recognized in the U.S.
See, this is the entire problem with this debate. People don't know the law. The U.S. doesn't recognize the concept of "dual citizenship" period. All U.S. law addresses is when you are a U.S. citizen, and actions that may cause you to lose U.S. citizenship. It simply does not address the situation when another country claims you as a citizen as well. So it is impossible to be a "dual citizen" under U.S. law, because U.S. law doesn't recognize the concept period.
Furthermore, following your line, the U.S. congress could then turn around and make everyone on the planet a U.S. citizen. Those scenarios are nonsense.
Sure it could. But then, other countries likely wouldn't be stupid enough to pass a law barring anyone from holding officer who was a citizen of another country without first passing laws clarifying what would constitutie such dual citizenship. Relying on the law of other nations to define when someone is a citizen isn't a solution, but right now, that's all we'd have. We don't have such a law at all right now even defining the concept.
The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement for the Commander in Chief of the armed forces is, in part, a national security measure. No CinC born with multiple allegiances!
I agree with that as a matter of principle. But you just can't pass a law saying that you can't be a citizen of another country. It will take more than that to define dual citizenship.