[EnderWiggins]

"If you were president, how can you be loyal to both countries?"

I would not be. I am not now.

"How could the American public be sure who you'd place first?"

That's entirely up to them. If they were not sure, I hope that they would withhold their vote.

" As the State Department clearly said in 1990:

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."

Yes they did. Now if you can find anywhere in the Constitution or any Statute where that impacts the definition of natural born citizen, then I'd suggest you get around to doing so.

[syc1959]

giggy-Fool

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…;

[BP2]

> I would not be. I am not now.

In the same manner your US citizenship cannot be
denied (with some exceptions that you would have
to undertake), neither can your status as a Subject.

Once a Subject, always a Subject.

In Obama’s case, it’s his birthright.