[STE=Q]

You Wrote: “So, I take you up on it and show you that Calvin’s Case (which Ark cited as the relevant English Common Law) declared that a natural born subject is born both within the sovereign’s dominion AND under a SINGLE SOLITARY allegiance to that sovereign AND THAT SOVEREIGN ONLY. And I even give you the relevant text by cut and paste ...”

Wig Wrote: It is hardly my fault that I cannot find a genuine argument in that act. After all, it is exactly the same thing that Wong Kim Ark says. That “single solitary allegiance” is a function of birthplace, not parental citizenship.
____________________________________________________________

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”

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.

By the way, we don’t necessarily need Vattel (although he would agree)to argue the above.

I think we would be employing “Natural Law.”

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

My argument(in part)from a former post:

The question has ALWAYS been one of Loyalty.

I am not a lawyer but I think the logic behind my short post makes sense.

Child is to parent (of age) as parent is to state.

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

Concomitantly, allegiance (obedience) is expected (extracted) of the child toward parent; as allegiance(obedience)is expected (extracted)of the parent by the state.

This is NATURAL!

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?

You would, of course, say that “place of birth” (jus soli) would override the allegiance to a foreign government transmitted (jus sanguinis) by the father.

Now if we were to weigh this on a scale you would be correct!

However, the key word here is SPLIT loyalty.

Even if something is split 90/10 it is still split.

END

From Calvin’s Case:

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

(Emphases mine)

STE=Q

[EnderWiggins]

”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.