Replies

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

Why do you play dumb and conflate the two?"

Well, obviously I didn't conflate them, or I wouldn't have asked that question. Instead, I asked specifically which you meant because most Birthers depend on that conflation to make their bogus case that a dual citizen cannot be an NBC. If you do not, good for you, but it pretty much renders the entire "split allegiances" argument meaningless. Don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly cool with that. It has always been my explicit opinion that the argument was meaningless. You confirm it here.

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

Exactly... and that is why the British Nationality Act is irrelevant to any discussion of Obama's loyalty. They can confer citizenship on anybody they want. But they cannot confer loyalty, and so it is no consequence to Obama's eligibility to be President no matter how many other nations grant him citizenship.

that is why the British Nationality Act is irrelevant to any discussion of Obama's loyalty.

If you read my post you will see that the loyalty, in my view, would be transferred through the parent.

In obama's case, his father would have transferred HIS loyalty (jus sanguinis) -- as a subject of Britain -- to his son.

The idea that ANY country could exact allegiance -- by randomly "conferring" citizenship -- is bogus.

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!

By the way YOUR system (jus soli ONLY)makes the STATE the PARENT... 1984 anyone?

But I digress.

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.

One thing is undeniable... that is, the more "pure" two citizen parent rule (and born in country) avoids most of the above problems of split loyalty at birth.

Does this mean that the above rule would ABSOLUTELY guarantee the loyalty of a Natural Born citizen to his/her country... or that he/she would be MORE dedicated to his/her country than a naturalized citizen?

Of course not.

It's a screening process just like when one applies for a job.

We just disagree on how strict the framers intended the process to be.

One thing we CAN agree on -- whether we like it or NOT:

There can be -- 'NO DOUBT' -- that one born in the United States of Citizen parents IS a Natural Born Citizen, under both jus soli and jus sanguinis.

STE=Q