Replies

"I was born on US soil to two citizen parents. And just BTW, they were also both born on US soil. And yet, under Italian law I am a citizen of Italy without ever assuming anything afterward."

You are a Natural Born Citizen because born on soil and citizen parents.

America does not recognize dual loyalty.

Every naturalized citizen has to swear an oath of allegiance to ONLY the united states(singular allegiance)

A baby at birth cannot swear, nor understand, such an oath of allegiance.

Therefore, it would seem reasonable to me that that allegiance can ONLY be transferred through the parents of the child.

Just as the child is under the control of the parent(s)the parent(s)are under the jurisdiction of the State.

And just as parent(s) would extract exclusive loyalty from THEIR child, so the State would extract exclusive loyalty from THEIR citizens.

As I said, how could allegiance be transfered if not through parents?

Now the problem is what if such a baby (born in USA) has an American mother and a foreign national father?

Following the aforementioned reasoning the babies allegiance would be split, would it not?

One can see following this analogy -- parents (are to) child; as state (is to) parents -- that being born in country to American parents solves the problem of divided loyalties in a NATURAL way.

It's not a question of how many countries can "claim" we are citizens of same... but rather the transmission of citizenship and the concomitant loyalty -- so attached at birth -- through one's parents.

STE=Q

"You are a Natural Born Citizen because born on soil and citizen parents."

Well, no. I am a natural born citizen because I was born on US soil and not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army. But yes, I also fit the most extreme of the bogus Birther definitions too, so there is no debate that I am, in fact, an NBC.

"America does not recognize dual loyalty."

If by "dual loyalty" you actually mean dual citizenship, you are quite wrong. Go read the State Department's website. They're not all warm and fuzzy on the concept, but they recognize it none the less.

"Every naturalized citizen has to swear an oath of allegiance to ONLY the united states(singular allegiance)"

Absolutely true.

"A baby at birth cannot swear, nor understand, such an oath of allegiance."

Exactly. Very good. Just as Obama at birth could not swear an oath of Allegiance. That is why, by law, his allegiance automatically belongs to the nation under whose jurisdiction he was when he was born. In his case(as in mine) that is the United States of America.

"Therefore, it would seem reasonable to me that that allegiance can ONLY be transferred through the parents of the child."

And you were doing so well. No... allegiance is an obligation owed for protection and jurisdiction at birth. As Blackstone explains:

"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."

Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765--1769. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Pp. 357-8

"As I said, how could allegiance be transfered if not through parents?"

Reread Blackstone's explanation above. It is the same explanation agreed on explicitly by the US Supreme Court.

"Following the aforementioned reasoning the babies allegiance would be split, would it not?"

No. The baby's allegiance is determined by place of birth.