See 670.
Sorry to break the news to you, but you've been had. The birther doctrine of "undivided loyalties" is a myth.
They simply didn't care whether a person's parents came from another country.
(William Rawle, friend and colleague of both Franklin and Washington: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.")
They didn't care whether a person spent his entire life in a foreign country, except for a minimum of 14 years.
(Article II, Section 5, United States Constitution).
Heck, they didn't care whether a President was a dual citizen.
(Thomas Jefferson, author of Declaration of Independence and 3rd US President, 1801-1809).
They just wanted to keep the British and other European royalty out.
Crash. Bang. That was the entire birther meme of "undivided loyalties," collapsing in a heap on the floor.
DL makes an argument on another thread that Rawle’s view was not the authoritative view, and it is a point worth considering. Rawle’s personal friendship with Washington, Franklin etc is not to be lightly dismissed, but neither is it decisive. At the founding, there was a transition underway that left a crazy quilt of conflicting definitions for citizenship, as DL’s post here describes:
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/2821875/posts?page=119#119
Nor is Jefferson’s presidency determinative, as the NBC clause specifically grandfathered in the founding generation as a second category of eligible persons. This was a matter of necessity, as it might be difficult to fill the office of president if the stricter rule were applied during that transitional period at the beginning. Indeed, there would have been no need for the grandfathering loophole if the NBC criteria could be easily met by the political luminaries in that first American generation.
Bottom line, this is in fact a very complicated question, and it is best answered by those whom we have granted the authority to say what the law is, our judiciary, and they have not yet spoken with finality on the exact facts of this case.
They simply didn't care whether a person's parents came from another country.
I see what you did there. This is called the ole "bait and switch." Your secondary assertion is irrelevant to your first assertion. Undivided loyalty has nothing to do with where your parents are from, it has to do with whether or not another nation has a legitimate claim upon your allegiance. (And can legally compel you to fight for them.)
(William Rawle, friend and colleague of both Franklin and Washington: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.")
No one is disputing that London-trained William Rawle's opinion closely follows English law. What is in dispute is his accuracy in applying English law to American law as regards to citizenship. We fought two wars over this point.
Heck, they didn't care whether a President was a dual citizen.
(Thomas Jefferson, author of Declaration of Independence and 3rd US President, 1801-1809).
Non Sequitur. Your example is not germane to your point.
They just wanted to keep the British and other European royalty out.
Which cannot be accomplished with your interpretation. Your interpretation precludes the article from serving the purpose for which it was created.
Crash. Bang. That was the entire birther meme of "undivided loyalties," collapsing in a heap on the floor.
This is much like your interpretation. "Alleged." Nothing more.