Replies

"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.

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.

Actually you are wrong, the naturalization law at the time Obama was born did not allow dual citizenship, and today's law on the dual citizenship concept is not retroactive.

Case in point John McCain was actually born in Colon, Panama, the question was raised and rightfully so if he was in fact a Natural Born citizen or even a citizen at all.

The Panama Canal Zone was never US territory and always belong to the Nation of Panama.

The reason John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be president was that he met the legal definition crafted by the Founding Fathers that you have tried to twist into fantasy, he was that child born to US citizens beyond the seas.....

“If by “dual loyalty” you actually mean dual citizenship, you are quite wrong”

No I was taking about dual (loyalty) NOT dual(citizenship)

Why do you play dumb and conflate the two?

ANY COUNTRY CAN CONFER CITIZENSHIP... HOWEVER, ANY COUNTRY CAN’T CONFER LOYALTY!

BUT THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MY THESES THAT YOU FAILED TO CONTRADICT.

The only people that will fall for your dialectic acrobatics are the same people that voted for your Master in the first place, troll!

Find a logical flaw in my argument and we will talk!

Until then, you lose!

As for place of birth conferring natural born status — if true — your master (Obama) may be in trouble:

Hawaii Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/

STE=Q

> 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.

The US State Department is A LOT more than “not all warm and fuzzy on the concept” of dual citizenship, for cripes sake!

You keep trying to make light of a very serious matter. In the case of the Executive Branch, there are NO internal safeguards.

In the Legislative branch with its two Chambers, the House has 435 members, so a few foreigners or dual citizens among them really do not make that much difference. The Senate only consists of 100 Members, so 1 or 2 out of 100 again is something else. Even the Supreme Court has nine members.

Alone, the Executive branch of our Government is vested in a single person. The Second and Third "Committee of Eleven" in summer 1787 contemplated THREE Executives, but opted for ONE Executive with the understanding that the office would have the UNIQUE safeguard of only permitting a "Natural Born Citizen" to act as the President. A few States in the Republic have had the "Natural Born Citizen" for various offices well into the 1800s, but the office of President is the ONLY office that has this qualification at the National Level per the US Constitution.

This is how it was addressed in 1990 in this English translation of a US State Department communique to the Russian embassy when the US began to acknowledge “dual citizenship” for the first time:

Official. U.S. position with regard to dual citizenship, which is guided by State Department, has been set forth in this telegram am. consulates and embassies on April 16. 1990. (67 Interpreter Releases 799, 23.07.90, 67 Interpreter Releases 1092, 01.10.90).

- snip -

At the same time, it is assumed that a person with dual citizenship are equally loyal to the United States and another State. They are required to obey the laws of both countries and each country has the right to enforce its national laws there are.

- snip -

U.S. has no treaty on mutual recognition of dual citizenship with other countries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States ratified a number of treaties on nationality (the so-called «contract Benkrofta», on behalf of a well-known am. Diplomat J. Benkrofta), but their goal was just the prevention of cases of dual nationality by automatic deprive a person of U.S. citizenship when adopting the State of nationality of the counterparty under the contract, and vice versa. As a result, as many decisions Am. Supreme Court's dual citizenship, these contracts were not feasible, and to date the U.S. got out of all.