True. Why, then, would they not have been very concerned about someone who was born with FOREIGN allegiance? They were, which is why they put in the "strong check" against that foreign intrigue.
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
And this...
US State Department Services Dual Nationalityhttp://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there...
The framers would not have considered the new citizens of the republic to be analogous to the subjects of the British crown.
For one thing, most subjects were never eligible to be the King (or Queen). However, all natural born Citizens would be eligible if they meet the age and residency requirements.
Furthermore, in 1787, English Subjects owed perpetual allegiance to the King whereas natural law (i.e. Law of Nations) tells us that citizens may "quit" their country and citizenship.
When the Deceleration of Independence and the Constitution were written, English subjects could not renounce their allegiance to the one sovereign, the crown:
"Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62
How, then, did they declare their Independence from the King if they owed a perpetual allegiance to the crown that could not be "forfeited, cancelled, or altered" under English Common law?
They used the principles found in natural law. Vattel states, in the Law of Nations (which is based on natural law), that citizens may renounce (or quit) their citizenship, and thus allegiance, to a country:
"Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To ItThe founders could never have written the Declaration of Independence had they relied upon English Common law.
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ..."
The problems associated with dual nationals, those that owe allegiance to two countries should be obvious.
One example of the issues surrounding dual nationality is the case of Boston born Ugo Da Prato who's father had naturalized prior to his birth. A Senator and the state department had to get involved because had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the (Italian) military.
By the way, if they had relied upon England's common law (which incorporated some natural law as well) by what authority did they declare their independence from the mother country if their common law expressly forbade it?
Marco Rubio was not born with dual citizenship nor dual allegiance, to my knowledge. His parents, at the time of his birth, owed their allegiance to the USA - ONLY.
Re: ‘By the way, if they had relied upon England’s common law (which incorporated some natural law as well) by what authority did they declare their independence from the mother country if their common law expressly forbade it?”
This is a red herring - and I suspect you know it. I never claimed that they relied on British Common Law - simply that they relied on Blackstone’s definition of Natural Born - a definition with which they were all well aquainted. I.e. We currently don’t tediously reference Webster’s for each word we use in debate, conversation or communication. We rely on a common understanding of the language between ourselves and our audience. Such is obviously the case in the use of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution - since it is not expressly defined, the framers relied on the common understanding of the definition of the word, and since contemporaneous correspondence between the framers referenced Blackstone so often, we can confidently cite his definition of the phrase - not as a legal construct, but simply as the definition of the term.
Every other argument used to define the term either uses much later (50 - 100 yrs) definitions, or uses sources less frequently mentioned (Vattel) in the founders’ correspondence.
With no specific mention of which meaning was intended (and they were certainly aware of the differences), and since we both agree that allegiance was the primary concern, and since Blackstone’s definition deals directly and primarily with allegiance, our best assumption is that Blackstone’s was the common definition at the time.
Original meaning, my friend, and the best evidence of the original meaning of the founders says Rubio is eligible for the presidency. Unless, of course, Mama Rubio used a spinal block during childbirth, which would mean Marco was not “natural born” :)
Don’t be so anxious to deny Obama legitimacy that you deny others their rightful claims. There are other, more sound and fruitful avenues. For instance, Obama’s father obviously did not owe his allegiance to the USA - hang your hat on allegiance, not a fine straining of the thin soup, Vattel vs Blackstone. Neither would view Obama as a natural born citizen.